> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Well, Peter, it's right there on the page. What page? > KA with Virama + BA = KWA, > in Oriya and with Latin transliterations. It's a BA. I swear. And how do you know it's BA and not a distinct character that comes after LLA? > The revisionism would be in deciding that the innovated WA was to be > used instead of BA. It isn't. But if there are people in India that think these conjuncts are formed with WA, then there's an interop problem. I don't personally care which character is used. I just need to worry about shipping an implementation that does one thing and having users come back saying it doesn't do what they expect, or it doesn't interoperate with other implementations they need to work with. > Um, I'll hunt them down shortly. Actually I haven't had an > acknowledgement from the bookstore yet, which I figured I would just > forward to you when it arrived. Sounds great. Thanks. Peter Constable
