> Well, Peter, it's right there on the page.
What page?
Page 18 of Learn Oriya in 30 Days, what I have been quoting from.
> 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?
A distinct character coming after LLA that looks just like BA? I know it's a BA because I can *read*. The book has alphabet charts. No WA. No VA. As expected, because they are innovations. The book shows examples of the constituent parts of the conjuncts in their full form, and it's a BA.
> The revisionism would be in deciding that the innovated WA was to beused 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.
You should implement according to what is on page 238 of the Unicode Standard, and if there are people in India who think otherwise they had better argue their case convincingly to the UTC.
I don't personally care which character is used.
I *do*. Someone at the TDIL has decided he's got a bright idea about how to use WA, and that changes the traditional orthography.
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.
Well, I hope you are taking on board what I have been saying. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
