(ORNL) Re: [WMASTERS] Re: Character to Glyph and Software Gimicks

["Muthu Nedumaran" <MNEDUMAR@sg.oracle.com>]

Dear Kalyan,

I'm breaking your posting into two parts.  I'll take the
second issue first and discuss the 'old-Mac (or old Machine)
issue in my next mail.

Muthu asked :
>> What is your advice to software & CGI developers on *how* one could
>> recognise if an old style lai/nai etc is used or a new style lai/nai
>> is used ?

Kalyan's response :

>I think I already answered to similar question of Nagu yesterday. 
>I am repeating it here in case you missed. Can you please tell me 
>if  I am totally wrong in my understanding?
 
Thanks and I will ..... read on....

>Regarding the old style characters, the way I see things is as follows:
>(in a scenario where unique code assignment is there for old style
>kokki)
>old style lai is a distinct beast (graphical representation) by itself. 
>If  the kokki has a separate code of its own, lai comsisting of  la 
>following this kokki is a different object from the current lai with
> la following the aikara modifier (irandu chuzhi). 
>If an old text had this lai occurring in the old form 
>it will be keyed  in and stored in that form with two glyphs.  
>Even in the same file if it appears in the new form it will be 
>typed and stored in that form. 

Understood your point .... read on ....

>For the human brain with built in intelligence, both old style lai
>and current style lai are one and the same. But for a computer, the
>encoded glyph sequence are different and so they are different
>things. So where does the confusion in sorting or search arise?
>If you search for the group [ (old style kokki)(la)] you will find
>only these but not those with current versions.
>Of course, we can always bring in software intervention if necessary
>to identify the old style characters and replace them by the new format.

Ah !... that's exactly what I'm trying to *avoid*.  *I* (the small 'i'
emphasised not the egoistic 'I' ;-)) *do not* want software intervention.
As a programmer (a little outdated maybe), I'll have to first *determine*
if the text I'm manipulating is in the old format or new format *before*
I do a search.  In your case, if one searches for 'thalaivan' with 
a new lai (supposedly) that he/she would not find thalaivan with an
old-lai - right ?  How can we find *both* without software gimicks ?
(Kalyan, I'm playing to your tune here - i.e. assuming that we encode
old chars as well (lets abreviate them as ORNL - old_style_ra_na_lai ).

Would you like to comment on this ?

>Probably this is where we differ in our conceptual role of how the
>old style characters are handled in the character encoding scheme.

Probably.  I do not want to encode ORNL.  I'd like ORNL to be just
glyphs that *renders* text with no character values.  

>I enjoy healthy discussions. It is a learning process for all.
>So I repeat,  I do not get upset or frustrated.

Great !  me too :-)

I'll talk about the old-machines next - may not be completely relavent
but I'll give it a try :-)

anbudan,

~ MUTHU


---- Begin included message ----

• To: Muthu,Nedumaran,<MNEDUMAR@sg.oracle.com>
• Subject: Re: [WMASTERS] Re: Character to Glyph and Software Gimicks
• From: "Dr.K. Kalyanasundaram <kalyan@igcsun3.epfl.ch>" <kalyan@igcsun3.epfl.ch>
• Date: 12 Sep 97 18:18:31
• Cc: webmasters@tamil.net,tamilnet@tamilnews.org.sg
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
• Organization: Swiss Federal Inst. of Technology
• References: <199709120729.PAA12194@sgdcn.sg.oracle.com>
• Reply-to: kalyan@igcsun3.epfl.ch

Dear Muthu:
> I choose *not* to argue with you on the 'half-baked-potatoe' issue.
> I think it's highly irrelavant - I see your frustrations coming into
> play and me being where I am has nothing to with it either :-).

No, Muthu, I am NOT frustrated. 
If majority opinion is not have old style characters be it. 
I will go along with it. But I would like to understand what you
are proposing.
I do not want to prolong discussions more than necessary.
I am trying hard to understand how, without software gimmicks
and without using emerging technologies, how someone
who uses the proposed 8-bit font to type on a primitive computer
can do what you propose - choose one form or other.

I can only talk about my decade experience as a user of Mac.
Open type fonts are not yet a standard on mac. At home, when
my wife or daughter use the Power Mac, I go back to my good
old MacPlus to do my typing of electronic texts of tamil. I am
quite happy using MacPlus typing tamil texts either in current
style or those that contain old-style characters using the tamil 
font  you know. Open Type usage on Mac requires usage of
System 7.x . There is no way I can install System 7.0 on my
MacPlus - because the built-in RAM slot is very very limited 
in these old machines. With its design structure, MacPlus has 
to die with System 6.x. Macs running on System 6.x cannot
have Open type. So you see the problem.
386 PCs I referred to in  my post are in the same boat as MacPlus.

Now I just cannot see how I can do what you are proposing
of glyph substitution on these machines. If you or someone
else care to explain to me how the scheme will work on simple 
machines like the one cited above, I am all in favour of it. 

Having them in the scheme with their own unique codes
will allow typing to continue in either form even on these 
primitive ones. Also, I haven't yet heard convincing 
arguments on how having these extra characters 
will lead to non-surmountable problems.

> What is your advice to software & CGI developers on *how* one could
> recognise if an old style lai/nai etc is used or a new style lai/nai
> is used ?
I think I already answered to similar question of Nagu yesterday. 
I am repeating it here in case you missed. Can you please tell me 
if  I am totally wrong in my understanding?

Regarding the old style characters, the way I see things is as follows:
(in a scenario where unique code assignment is there for old style
kokki)
old style lai is a distinct beast (graphical representation) by itself. 
If  the kokki has a separate code of its own, lai comsisting of  la 
following this kokki is a different object from the current lai with
 la following the aikara modifier (irandu chuzhi). 
If an old text had this lai occurring in the old form 
it will be keyed  in and stored in that form with two glyphs.  
Even in the same file if it appears in the new form it will be 
typed and stored in that form. 

For the human brain with built in intelligence, both old style lai
and current style lai are one and the same. But for a computer, the
encoded glyph sequence are different and so they are different
things. So where does the confusion in sorting or search arise?
If you search for the group [ (old style kokki)(la)] you will find
only these but not those with current versions.
Of course, we can always bring in software intervention if necessary
to identify the old style characters and replace them by the new format.

Probably this is where we differ in our conceptual role of how the
old style characters are handled in the character encoding scheme.

I enjoy healthy discussions. It is a learning process for all.
So I repeat,  I do not get upset or frustrated.

Kalyan

---- End included message ----