Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
This is the problem we have with UC and the major
corporates, they are trying to destroy the only serviving writing
system, the only scientific writing system, the only original
writing system of the world.
No, they are trying to provide a computer encoding of a set of signs
such that these can be used in computer text processing environments and
around which secondary mechanisms such as fonts can be built. As has
been fairly frequently discussed in the past with regard to other
writing systems, there is no requirement for a computer encoding scheme
to directly model any particular understanding of how a particular
writing system works. Which is just as well, since historically
different communities may have had different understanding of the same
set of characters and, indeed, may have used them in different ways. The
issues that matter with regard to a computer encoding are technical
issues, not cultural or philosophical issues. So, for instance, when N.
Ganesan points out that there are differences in processing behaviour
for Tamil and Grantha, I consider that an important issue that needs to
be considered carefully, because it is a technical issue with potential
impact on the usability of the encoding for the purposes for which it is
designed. When someone repeatedly asserts that a particular writing
system is the only 'scientific' one -- I can't guess what that term
might might in this context --, or that it is the only original one, but
does not provide any reasoned argument beyond these assertions to
indicate why this particular understanding of the Tamil writing system
might imply some *technical* issues for the computer encoding Tamil, how
am I, or the UTC, or anyone else supposed to respond? What are we
supposed to consider on terms of technical merit?
JH
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Gulf Islands, BC [email protected]
A pilgrimage is a journey undertaken in the
light of a story. -- Paul Elie
