Re: L2/18-181

On Wed, 16 May 2018 13:46:22 -0700 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18181-n4947-assamese.pdf > > This is a fascinating proposal to disunify the Assamese script from > Bengali on the following bases: According to the proposal, the encoding for

Re: L2/18-181

On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:43:00 -0700 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > It is the same for Bengali and Assamese, although the > language-specific subsets are called abugidas instead of alphabets. If we allow an abugida to be different to an alphasyllabary, then, in Thailand,

Re: L2/18-181

Otto Stolz wrote: > I wonder how English and French ever could > be made to use a single script, let alone > German (???), Icelandic (???), Swedish (???), > Latvian (???), Chech (???) or ? you name it. They do use the same script, Latin. They do not use the same alphabet. Each language has its

RE: L2/18-181

I wrote: > ক্ is a conjunct consisting of three code points s/ক্/ক্ষ/ -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

RE: L2/18-181

Everyone, I was not serious about this proposal being "fascinating" or in any way a model for what should happen with the Bengali script. Please imagine a tongue-in-cheek expression as you re-read my post. Maybe there is an emoji that depicts this. Maybe I've just been away from the list too

Re: Fwd: L2/18-181

On 5/16/2018 3:41 PM, Anshuman Pandey via Unicode wrote: If folks are interested in a valid proposal for disunification of Bengali, please look at the proposal for Tirhuta. Location? A./

Re: L2/18-181

William Overington offered a suggestion, ⇒ Maybe people should be helping to get this resolved ⇒ to the satisfaction of all and helping rather than ⇒ criticising. That's a noble thought, but as long as Assamese continues to be written using the Eastern Nagari script, which is referred to as

Re: L2/18-181

Otto Stolz wrote: > I wonder how English and French ever could be made to use a single script, > let alone German (“ß”), Icelandic (“þ”), Swedish (“å”), Latvian (“ē”), Chech > (“č”) or – you name it. Years ago I used to hand set metal type - letterpress printing was a family hobby. For a

Re: L2/18-181

Am 2018-05-16 um 22:46 Uhr hat Doug Ewell geschrieben: 2. Collation is different between the Assamese and Bengali languages, and code point order should reflect collation order. … 4. The use of a single encoded script to write two languages forces users to use language identifiers to identify

Re: L2/18-181

On Thu, 17 May 2018 01:24:09 +0100 Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > It sounds to me like a fault in the keyboard software, which could be > fixed by the people who own and maintain that software. We had this discussion a few years ago. See

Re: L2/18-181

On Wed, 16 May 2018 17:41:12 -0500 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode wrote: > > 3. Keyboard design is more difficult because consonants like ক্ষ > > are encoded as conjunct forms instead of atomic characters. > > Ignorant question on my part: is it difficult to use character >

Re: L2/18-181

It sounds to me like a fault in the keyboard software, which could be fixed by the people who own and maintain that software. > On 17 May 2018, at 01:20, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 00:34:35 +0100 > Michael Everson via Unicode

Re: L2/18-181

On Thu, 17 May 2018 00:34:35 +0100 Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > This is not a fault of the encoding. > > > On 16 May 2018, at 23:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > > wrote: > > > > I think simple Windows keyboards have a limit of 4 16-bit

Re: L2/18-181

And Icelandic. And Irish. And so on. > On 16 May 2018, at 23:41, Anshuman Pandey via Unicode > wrote: > >> 2. Collation is different between the Assamese and Bengali languages, >> and code point order should reflect collation order. > > The same issue applies to

Re: L2/18-181

This is not a fault of the encoding. > On 16 May 2018, at 23:01, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > wrote: > > I think simple Windows keyboards have a limit of 4 16-bit code units; > for an Indic SMP script, one couldn't map to a single key, as it > would require 6 code

Fwd: L2/18-181

> On May 16, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode > wrote: > > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18181-n4947-assamese.pdf > > This is a fascinating proposal to disunify the Assamese script from > Bengali on the following bases: ‘Fascinating’ is a not a term I’d use for

Re: L2/18-181

On Wed, 16 May 2018 13:46:22 -0700 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18181-n4947-assamese.pdf > > This is a fascinating proposal to disunify the Assamese script from > Bengali on the following bases: > 3. Keyboard design is more difficult

L2/18-181

http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18181-n4947-assamese.pdf This is a fascinating proposal to disunify the Assamese script from Bengali on the following bases: 1. The identity of Assamese as a script distinct from Bengali is in jeopardy. 2. Collation is different between the Assamese and Bengali