Re: [WMASTERS] Re: Unanswered Questions!

[Nagarajan Chinnasamy <nagu@ncms1.cb.lucent.com>]

Dear Muthu,

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
> >Table,
> >          we are encouraging the people to use it as a separate
> >character.
> >          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.
> 
> anbudan,
> 
> ~ 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" :-)

anbudan,
nagu.