Re: [Indic-computing-devel] Re: Indic computing handbook: devanagari

[Krishnamurthy N. <kn...@ya...>]

--- Guntupalli Karunakar <kar...@fr...>
wrote:

> > Actually, it can be. The same goes for thra/tra
> and gya/jna/gna.
> > Lexically there is absolutely no difference
> between half ka + shha
> > and the ksha we are talking about. 
> > 
> going by that logic aspirated consonants (KHA, GHA,
> TTHA etc) are to
> be composed of the pure consonant + HA sound.
>  I think the idea of keeping conjuncts (including
> KSHA, TRA, JNA) out
> of encoding is to minimise, script symbols in view
> of the limited
> space avaialble for encoding (128 code or less code
> points). If there
> were 1000  or more code points available then
> defnitely KSHA & co
> would have been included as characters or akhands.

Well, there isn't paucity of code points for just 3
more characters. TRA is surely a conjunct (though 
it probably is mentioned as a base char. in some old
texts), GNA also is. However, KSHA is rather unique
and deserves to be identified as a base character, IMO

Nagarajan


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com