Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Tue, 29 May 2018 14:03:25 -0700 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > In any case, Ken has answered the real underlying question: a process > that checks whether each character in a sequence is "alphabetic" is > inappropriate for determining whether the sequence constitutes a word. Back in the

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

Richard Wordingham wrote: >>> The effects of virama that spring to mind are: >>> >>> (a) Causing one or both letters on either side to change or combine >>> to indicate combination; >>> >>> (b) Appearing as a mark only if it does not affect one of the >>> letters on either side; >>> >>> (c)

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Tue, 29 May 2018 07:27:21 -0700 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > On 5/29/2018 12:49 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > How would one know that they are misapplied? And what if the > > author of the text has broken your rules? Are such texts never to > > be transcribed to pukka

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Mon, 28 May 2018 16:13:43 -0600 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > The effects of virama that spring to mind are: > > > > (a) Causing one or both letters on either side to change or combine > > to indicate combination; > > > > (b) Appearing as a mark only if it

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On 5/29/2018 12:49 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: How would one know that they are misapplied? And what if the author of the text has broken your rules? Are such texts never to be transcribed to pukka Unicode? Applying Tamil -ii (0BC0, Script=Tamil) to the Latin letter a (0061,

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Mon, 28 May 2018 22:02:15 -0700 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > On 5/28/2018 9:44 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > One of the general principles is that combining marks inherit the > > property of their base character. > > > > Normally, "inherited" should be the only property value

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On 5/28/2018 9:44 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: One of the general principles is that combining marks inherit the property of their base character. Normally, "inherited" should be the only property value for combining marks. There have been some deviations from this over the

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On 5/28/2018 9:23 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: Hello Sundar, On 2018/05/28 04:27, SundaraRaman R via Unicode wrote: Hi, In languages like Ruby or Java (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#isAlphabetic(int)), functions to check if a character is

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

One of the general principles is that combining marks inherit the property of their base character. Normally, "inherited" should be the only property value for combining marks. There have been some deviations from this over the years, for various reasons, and there are some properties (such

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

Hello Sundar, On 2018/05/28 04:27, SundaraRaman R via Unicode wrote: Hi, In languages like Ruby or Java (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#isAlphabetic(int)), functions to check if a character is alphabetic do that by looking for the 'Alphabetic' property

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

SundaraRaman R wrote: but the very common pulli (VIRAMA) is neither in Lo nor has 'Other_Alphabetic', and so leads to concluding any string containing it to be non-alphabetic. Is this definition part of Unicode? I thought the use of General Category to answer questions like "this sequence is

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Mon, 28 May 2018 20:03:11 +0530 SundaraRaman R via Unicode wrote: > Hi, thanks for your reply. > > > There is only one character with a canonical combining class of 9 > > that is included as other_alphabetic, namely U+0E3A THAI CHARACTER > > PHINTHU. That last had any of

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

Hi, thanks for your reply. > There is only one character with a canonical combining class of 9 that > is included as other_alphabetic, namely U+0E3A THAI CHARACTER PHINTHU. > That last had any of the other properties of viramas back in Unicode > 1.0; the characters that triggered such behaviours

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

On Mon, 28 May 2018 00:57:03 +0530 SundaraRaman R via Unicode wrote: > Hi, > > In languages like Ruby or Java > (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#isAlphabetic(int)), > functions to check if a character is alphabetic do that by looking for >

Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

Hi, In languages like Ruby or Java (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#isAlphabetic(int)), functions to check if a character is alphabetic do that by looking for the 'Alphabetic' property (defined true if it's in one of the L categories, or Nl, or has