On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Dhrubajyoti Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [quoting Akshor]
> > I thing we need not be restrained by these so-called 'standards'.
> Because,
> > they can't and will not serve our need (Bengali) in my humble view.
> Thats
> > why we toke this proje
Martin Kochanski wrote:
> And (3) it is not yet realistic to expect that
> all software will be able to handle the non-1-to-1 relationship
> between characters and glyphs, and it won't be for some time.
This argument belongs into the 1980s, not into the 2000s.
It is one reason why Unicode has
Dhrubajyoti Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting Akshor]
> I thing we need not be restrained by these so-called 'standards'.
Because,
> they can't and will not serve our need (Bengali) in my humble view.
Thats
> why we toke this project at our hand and working to impliment a
universal
> i
At 09:09 + 2002-05-03, Dhrubajyoti Banerjee wrote:
>I hope Unicode proliferates fast in these areas so people can
>understand it and use it without wasting time in such activities as
>reinventing the wheel.
>
>regards,
>Dhruba
I am delighted to hear you say this, Dhruba. Usually we only he
Now it may be pedantic of me, but I can just imagine a defence for the approach that
these guys are taking.
The correct way of implementing Bengali is (as I think you are saying) as follows:
1. Use the defined Unicode code points.
2. Use (or design) a font that is intelligent enough to combine
Hi,
I was taking a bit of time off by searching what is available for Unicode
on Indic Scripts. I came across this site.
http://www.akshor.com/
Although I was quite amused at first, with excerpts like, "...To minimize
the codepage issue a brand new technology has lunched just a few years
6 matches
Mail list logo
