Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Let's stop this nightmare. The "solution" that uses a font hack that overrides the sematnics of Latin letters will never work as it should. Th eseparation of code points is necessary, even if this is just to show an URL containing Sinhalese letters in the domain name part (and without alternig the

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Le 17/07/12 02:43, Naena Guru a écrit : >> Just see the daily questions and dedicated section for Indic at Unicode.org, and think why ordinary people Anglicize instead of using Unicode Sinhala. (e.g. elakiri.com). > Some also use the Sinhalese script. > I’ve sometimes seen people ty

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Le 17/07/12 02:43, Naena Guru a écrit : > Jean, sorry I am late. I used spare time as and when I got it. > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Jean-François Colson wrote: > > Le 09/07/12 01:29, Naena Guru a écrit : >> Jean-François, >> >> Let me approximate it in Romanized Singhala:

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Hey, Philippe, Your input is much appreciated. So, in a nutshell, I don't have to worry. One of these days I need to crunch down (minify) the CSS and JavaScript pages. I left them readily readable so that techs like you could easily read them in place in any browser without having to pretty print.

Re: Ewellic again (was: Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

My error. Sorry, Doug. On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Unicode character database goes from zero to some very big number. There >> are no holes in it to define character sets for somebody's fancy. Well, >> Doug Ewell did one for Esparanto expanding fuþorc. >> > > Ewellic is n

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Leif Halvard Silli < xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Naena Guru, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:40:19 -0500: > > > HTML5 assumes UTF-8 as the character set if you do not declare one > > explicitly. My current pages are in HTML 4. > > There is in principle no diffe

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Leif Halvard Silli wrote: As for editors: If your own editor have no problems with the BOM, then what? But I think Notepad can also save as UTF-8 but without the BOM - there should be possible to get an option for choosing when you save it. Perhaps there should be such an option in Notepad, bu

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Philippe Verdy, Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:36:56 +0200: > 2012/7/11 Leif Halvard Silli: >> In VIM, you set or unset the BOM via the commands >> >> set bomb >> set nobomb > > Should these command specify if your computer will explode when saving > the file ? > > :'o Probably signals the

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

2012/7/11 Leif Halvard Silli : > it. Else you can use the free Notepad++. And many others. In VIM, you > set or unset the BOM via the commands > > set bomb > set nobomb Should these command specify if your computer will explode when saving the file ? :'o set bom set nobom Sorry,

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Naena Guru, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:40:19 -0500: > HTML5 assumes UTF-8 as the character set if you do not declare one > explicitly. My current pages are in HTML 4. There is in principle no difference between what HTML5-parsers assume and what HTML4-parsers assume: All of them default to the default

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

2012/7/10 Naena Guru > I wanted to see how hard it is to edit a page in Notepad. So I made a copy > of my LIYANNA page and replaced the character entities I used for Unicode > Sinhala, accented Pali and Sanskrit with their raw letters. Notepad forced > me to save the file in UTF-8 format. I ran i

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:45 +0200 Jean-François Colson wrote: > Le 09/07/12 01:29, Naena Guru a écrit : > > Number of letters in Singhala is only theoretical. In the case of > > Singhala orthography, the actually used number depends on the > > Sanskrit vocabulary. > Do you mean there are many

Re: Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Thank you Otto. Sorry for delay in replying. I spent the entire Sunday replying Jaques twins. You are absolutely right about choice between ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8. I shouldn't have said 'using ISO-8859-1 is advantageous over UTF-8' It is efficient if your pages are written in a language that uses s

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

2012/7/9 Naena Guru : >> Using Latin letters for a transliteration of Sinhala is not a hack, but >> making fonts said to be Latin-1 with Sinhalese letters instead of the Latin >> letters is a hack. Your hack us a hack? Simply because you've absolutely not understood anything abot what is Unicode.

Ewellic again (was: Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Unicode character database goes from zero to some very big number. There are no holes in it to define character sets for somebody's fancy. Well, Doug Ewell did one for Esparanto expanding fuþorc. Ewellic is not futhorc. They are different scripts. From the Omniglot page on Ewellic (with *emph

Influence of Futhorc on Ewellic (was: Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Naena Guru wrote: I think the script you dreamed of as a boy is very nearly fuþorc. foþorc is the (Old) English alphabet. From the Omniglot page on Ewellic: "The shape of Ewellic letters was inspired by the Runic and Cirth scripts, but shows greater (though still imperfect) regularity of for

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2012/7/5 Naena Guru : > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Philippe Verdy > wrote: > >> > >> Anyway, consider the solutions already proposed in Sinhalese > >> Wikipedia. There are verious solutions proposed, including several > >> i

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Thank you Goliath. On another subject, I think the script you dreamed of as a boy is very nearly fuþorc. foþorc is the (Old) English alphabet. Thank you. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: > [removing cc list] > > > Naena Guru wrote: > > On this 4th of July, let me quote James

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Seems to me that Naena Guru is demonstrating the truth of two adages: a) A fanatic is a person who redoubles his efforts when he loses sight of his goal; and b) Every movement starts with a fanatic, but for the movement to succeed, the fanatic must be removed from the movement. Peter Ingerm

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Naena Guru wrote: > I know you do not care about a language of a 15 milllion people, but it > matters to them. These kinds of straw man arguments are rude and counter-productive. Such a characterization is highly unlikely to be true for anyone on this list, and you've just ensured that few of

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Le 05/07/12 10:02, Naena Guru a écrit : On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Philippe Verdy > wrote: Anyway, consider the solutions already proposed in Sinhalese Wikipedia. There are verious solutions proposed, including several input methods supported there

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

2012/7/5 Naena Guru : > The above are not any of my complaints. > Per Capita Income in Sri Lanka $2400. They are content with cell phones. The > practical place for computers is the Internet Cafe. Linux is what the vast > majority needs. And Linux fully supports the standard Unicode encoding of t

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

> > 2012/7/5 Naena Guru : > > Philippe, > > > > My last message was partial. It went out by mistake. I'll try again. It > > takes very long for this old man. > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > From: Naena Guru >

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Philippe, ask your friends why ordinary people Anglicize if Unicode Sinhala is so great. See just one of many community forums: http://elakiri.com I know you do not care about a language of a 15 milllion people, but it matters to them. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Yo

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

2012/7/4 Naena Guru : > Philippe Verdy, obviously has spent a lot of time Not a lot of time... Sorry. > researching the web site > and even went as far as to check the faults of the web service provider, > Godaddy.com. I did not even note that your hosting provider was that company. I just looke

Charset declaration in HTML (was: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again)

Hello Naena Guru, on 2012-07-04, you wrote: The purpose of declaring the character set as iso-8859-1 than utf-8 is to avoid doubling and trebling the size of the page by utf-8. I think, if you have characters outside iso-8859-1 and declare the page as such, you get Character-not-found for those

Re: Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

[removing cc list] Naena Guru wrote: On this 4th of July, let me quote James Madison: [quote from Madison irrelevant to character encoding principles snipped] I gave much thought to why many here at the Unicode mailing list reacted badly to my saying that Unicode solution for Singhala is ba

Romanized Singhala - Think about it again

Pardon me for including a CC list. These are people who showed for and against opinion. On this 4th of July, let me quote James Madison: A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to differen