RE: [Indic-computing-standards] Re: [Indic-computing-users] Unicode

[Andy W. <And...@bt...>]

If problems in Indic Unicode handling are not brought up on the Unicode
list, members of the Unicode consortium may never learn about them and
they may never be sorted.

I have searched the Unicode list and it seems that Keyur Shroff has
*never* posted to any messages to it.

To post to the Unicode list you have to first subscribe. See
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html
To send messages to the list please send them to un...@un...

All deficiencies regarding Indic Unicode handling, once discussed,
should be mentioned on the Unicode list above.

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ind...@li... 
> [mailto:ind...@li...]
>  On Behalf Of Andy White
> Sent: 21 January 2003 15:52
> To: 'Keyur Shroff'; 'SayaminduDasgupta'
> Cc: ind...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Indic-computing-standards] Re: 
> [Indic-computing-users] Unicode
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Keyur Shroff wrote:
> > 
> > --- Sayamindu Dasgupta <unm...@So...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Here is a nice resource - primarily related to Bangla though.
> > > http://www.exnet.btinternet.co.uk/
> > 
> > These documents are prepared by the foreign people on Unicode
> > list.
> 
> No there were not. They were written by me.
> If I am foreign, then you are also foreign! ;-)
> 
> > The FAQ mentioned there is not part of Unicode standard
> > bu it is there on Unicode website for the benefit of people. 
> > I have noticed some ambiguity and wrong information in the 
> > FAQ. For example, in the FAQ it has been written that
> >          ISCII:     Halant + Halant
> >          Unicode:   Halant + ZWJ
> > 
> > are equivalent, which is wrong. In ISCII, Halant + Halant is
> > known as explicit Halant and it produces result similar to 
> > Halant + ZWNJ in Unicode. So instead of ZWJ, there should be 
> > ZWNJ. There are other corrections also. I reported this in 
> > Unicode list but corrections have not be taken place yet.
> 
> I thought that it was me that reported this, but now it seems 
> that it was you!?
> 
> Andy