Re: [WMASTERS] Re: Old Orthography, response to Kalyan

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

Dear Muthu,

Thank you for an excellent explanation on why we are coding
**characters**
as much as possible. And very good points on **How a standard should
be**.
Thank you again.

But, I have one more question. I know you would have guessed.

Yes. Its about Tamil Numerals.

1. Then, Are we keeping them just for Unicode compatibility?
2. Isnt it possible to store the etext archives in Roman Numbers format?
   ie. recognize the old format and store the equivalent new format??
3. How good is it to have "Just for showing" glyphs in a STANDARD?
4. Will it be enough if we code only Tamil (10), (100), (1000)???

Thats all I have now :-)

anbudan,
nagu.


Muthu Nedumaran (Ezil) wrote:
> 
> 
> Nagu,
> 
> Well said.   You are also right about us encoding *glyphs* with *as much*
> characters.  However, I see the following as a *justification* to do so.
> 
> 1. Ecoding pure characters may *cut-off* hobbyists who develop fonts for
>    Tamil without any inclination to writing codes (manipulation routines)
> 
> 2. Though we encode glyphs *occasionally* we are (I hope) taking steps
>    to ensure that, under normal circumstances, it'll not make sense to
>    encode the same *letter* with any other combination of characters.
>    For example, we have assigned specific glyphs for all mey's (dotted's).
>    We are also ensuring (my point at least) that we do not leave the
>    'dot' character hanging around to cause ambiguity.  In other words,
>    one whould not, even by accident, store 'k' as 'ka' + 'pulli' (since
>    'pulli' does not exist as a *character*).
> 
> 3. Having ensured that (2) is taken care of, people in (1) can freely
>    create fonts without messing up the *standard* format of storing
>    Tamil etext.
> 
> 4. (1), (2) & (3) *are* the main reasons why I'm opposing ORNL
> 
> 5. We *are* thinking of alternate ways of rendering ORNL for those
>    who need to view text in that format - though it takes special
>    conditions, it's (IMHO) more than worth the trade-off.
> 
> Comments ..... ?
> 
> anbudan,
> 
> ~ MUTHU
> 
> At 07:15 PM 9/15/97 -0400, Nagarajan Chinnasamy wrote:
> >Dear Bala,
> >
> >Unicode has the concept of ligatures. It says those old codes optionally
> >**ligate** in old styles.
> >
> >So, Unicode did not leave old style **forms**. Because its a way of
> >rendering
> >the letters. Unicode just bothers about encoding characters not the
> >glyphs.
> >
> >But the table we have is a collection of Glyphs (though we might try to
> >keep as much **characters** as possible). Yes. We need them. Only if we
> >are particular about showing them in Old Style.
> >
> >But if we keep separate codes for those old forms it will unnecessarily
> >confuse the text processing(any application that tries to make sense out
> >of the text!) applications.
> >
> >What anybody will lose if you show "a,nnn,nnnaa" as "a,nnn,nnna,kaal".
> >Do
> >they get any other meaning out of it???
> >
> >The text is Old in its content not in its Letters.
> >
> >NOTE: I Did Not say anything about Tamil Numerals. Will write about it
> >latter.
> >
> >anbudan,
> >nagu.
> >
> >
> >
> >Bala Pillai wrote:
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________
> >>
> >> This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC)
> >>   @  Nothing Less Than A Tamil Digital Renaissance Now   @
> >> <http://www.apic.net> Click now<mailto:info@apic.net> for instant info
> >> ________________________________________________
> >>
> >> At 06:42 PM 9/15/97 +0000, Dr.K. Kalyanasundaram wrote:
> >>
> >> >Old style numerals were proposed for two reasons:
> >> > i) to provide compatibility with UNICODE 2.0 and
> >> >ii) for possible use in electronic archiving of
> >> >ancient tamil literature.
> >>
> >> Kalyan and anybody else who may know:
> >>
> >> How cast in stone is UNICODE 2.0 as it applies to Tamil script? Is it not
> >> possible that our discussions would affect a revised version of UNICODE 2.X
> >> ? My limited knowledge of UNICODE Tamil deliberations suggest that it did
> >> not get much (not anybody's fault mind you) airing.
> >>
> >> anbudan.../bala
> >>
> >> bala pillai* bala@sydney.net*the asia pacific internet co, sydney
> >> V I R T U A L   C O M M U N I T Y   E X P E R T S
> >> <http://apic.net>   <http://sydney2000.net> <http://malaysia.net>
> >> <http://tamil.net>      for info send blank <mailto:info@apic.net>
> >> ph:+61 2 9419 5333                         fax: + 61 2 9419 5155
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________
> >>
> >> Sponsors/Advertisers  needed -  please email bala@tamil.net
> >> More TRFCs (tamil dot net request for comments) wanted
> >> Check out the tamil.net web site on <http://tamil.net>
> >> Postings to <webmasters@tamil.net>
> >> ________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________
> >
> >Sponsors/Advertisers  needed -  please email bala@tamil.net
> >More TRFCs (tamil dot net request for comments) wanted
> >Check out the tamil.net web site on <http://tamil.net>
> >Postings to <webmasters@tamil.net>
> >________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Sponsors/Advertisers  needed -  please email bala@tamil.net
> More TRFCs (tamil dot net request for comments) wanted
> Check out the tamil.net web site on <http://tamil.net>
> Postings to <webmasters@tamil.net>
> ________________________________________________