Tamil Discussion archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [WMASTERS] Re: Unanswered Questions!
My suggestion to include ksha came from the *users* of Tamil DTP software
in Malaysia/Singapore for the past decade. It was a lot easier for me to
put it in than *trying* to educate them *not* to use it. I do not have any
personal preferance to this - if it's left out, my guess is DTP font
developers may just have to squeze it in some place - back to the same
old problem of incompatible font encodings again.
One other work around to this will be to have a 'key' defined in the kbd
(Kalyan, please do not come back to me with the kbd first or coding first
argument again <smile>) and have the driver render k(oRRu)+ sha as selva
suggested. Question here is "will this be acceptable by the user
My main concern here is the *one* standard we are trying to shoot for may
not materialise :-( It's not purely linguistic/technical arguments alone
that goes into the standards process. Creating the *standard* alone is
a battle - do we want to get into another battle of defining/changing how
one writes tamil first ? We may loose the war :-(
At 12:44 PM 9/16/97 -0400, C.R. Selvakumar wrote:
>@Pl. read further:
>@Muthu Nedumaran (Ezil) wrote:
>@> ________Stuff Deleted________
>@> > 4. Encoding "Ksha" as a character.
>@> > ANS: If it is there in the Table, and as far as we dont need those
>@> > positions, they can be there. Technically we are not losing
>@> > anything.
>@> > But personally what I feel is(And I hope its generally logical
>@> > too!), A language need not have a redundant/unnecessary
>@> > **character** in its character list. By having it in our
>@> > we are encouraging the people to use it as a separate
>@> > But actually it is just a style of writing combined letters.
>@> > We are not losing any **sound** by leaving it.
>@> Sorry Nagu, I do not think I'm qualified to do an analysis on ksha. It's
>@> OK for me both ways. Having it there appears easier to me and I do not
>@> see any ambiguity ;-)
>@> >Things To Do List:
>@> I'm skipping this...for now.
>@> ~ MUTHU
>@OK. I understand that there is no **technical** problem there. May be
>@this thread is not the place to discuss about this problem. So, for our
>@STANDARDIZATION effort I give the GREEN signal with "Ksha" :-)
> Please don't include Ksha, for heaven's sake,
> and waste a space. I suggest that you
> include a symbol for f instead. I suggest a tamil symbol va with a
> short horizontal line on the right post. I was going to
> suggest in a web page soon, but you guys are going so
> fast ! On another topic,
> I don't understand why Dr. K. Srinivasan has *two*
> tamil 'a' in his valaisri. I've not had a chance to
> look at the latest arrangement of the 7-bit and 8-bit layouts.
> [ I did look at the Unicode 2 briefly. Incidently, I was
> irked by their terminology of 'anuswara'(puLLi, oRRu)
> and 'visarga' (aaytham). Can someone point out these
> mistakes to those Unicode fellows? ]
> Can someone please post some deadlines for making decisions ?
> I want to point out to Dr. Kalyan that
> writing k(oRRu)+ sha is okay and it may be misleading
> to make comparisons with with tamil 'Ukaarams'
> ( such as why we should not do thu+kaal for thU). Ksha is not
> a tamil letter and does not occur often. People have been misusing
> this letter Ksha for writing kaatchi as kaakshi ( while the
> word is a proper tamil word with kaN > kaaN > kaatchi).
> List 10 words with Ksha other than pakshi (=bird)
> ( we should properly be using paRavai)
> Instead please include a symbol for 'f'.
> Just like we want to include roman letters and
> copyright and trademark symbols, we may want to include
> a limited set of grantha letters such as sha, ha and possibly
> other common symbols like greek mu ( for referring to micro) etc.
> But Ksha is certainly not needed.
> Please include which are more useful than Ksha.
> anbudan selvaa
Main Index |