Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-19 Thread Richard Wordingham via Unicode
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:54:47 +0530
Shriramana Sharma  wrote:

> Or maybe the Grantha candrabindu can be used, since there is already
> evidence for mixed usage of the scripts and nukta characters have been
> encoded for Tamil usage in the Grantha block for this same reason
> despite Grantha users objecting to it as unattested!

That seems to be the approved solution - the script_extension property
of U+11301 GRANTHA SIGN CANDRABINDU is {Gran, Taml}.

Richard.


Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-19 Thread Shriramana Sharma via Unicode
On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode  wrote:
> That reminds me - what if anything is happening about Tamil script
> candrabindu? You reported that U+0310 was being used in that rôle.

I think that there was an idea to add Taml to U+0310's script extensions.

Or maybe the Grantha candrabindu can be used, since there is already
evidence for mixed usage of the scripts and nukta characters have been
encoded for Tamil usage in the Grantha block for this same reason
despite Grantha users objecting to it as unattested! 

-- 
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा ူ၆ိျိါအူိ၆ါး



Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-19 Thread Richard Wordingham via Unicode
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:36:16 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Unicode  wrote:

> On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode 
> wrote:
> > That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
> > U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
> > saying it is to be used with Devanagari".  
> 
> Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already
> has a candrabindu?

I know any such footnote would be wrong.  Disproving it ever existed is
trickier.  I can imagine a statement that it "represents the Devanagari
candrabindu", which could after the passage of years change into the
claim in someone's human memory.

> > However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
> > general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.  

> Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining
> Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that
> separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text
> shaping engines or such.

That reminds me - what if anything is happening about Tamil script
candrabindu? You reported that U+0310 was being used in that rôle.

Richard.



Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-19 Thread Shriramana Sharma via Unicode
On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode  wrote:
> That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
> U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
> saying it is to be used with Devanagari".

Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already
has a candrabindu?

> However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
> general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.

Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining
Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that
separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text
shaping engines or such.

-- 
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा ူ၆ိျိါအူိ၆ါး



Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-18 Thread Richard Wordingham via Unicode
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:52:15 +0200
Marius Spix via Unicode  wrote:

> The Wikipedia page states, U+0310 is a general-purpose combining
> diacritical mark. I would treat it similar like U+0308 (COMBINING
> DIAERESIS) or U+030C (COMBINING CARON), which are both characters with
> multiple names and different meanings depending on the script and the
> language. The main benefit of these general-purpose combining
> diacritical marks is, that they can be applied to many characters if
> needed. I don’t think, it is a good idea to remove this versatility.

That's a fair point.  My problem is that someone is claiming of
U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote
saying it is to be used with Devanagari".

However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the
general combining diacritics in Indic scripts.

Richard.



Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-18 Thread Marius Spix via Unicode
The Wikipedia page states, U+0310 is a general-purpose combining
diacritical mark. I would treat it similar like U+0308 (COMBINING
DIAERESIS) or U+030C (COMBINING CARON), which are both characters with
multiple names and different meanings depending on the script and the
language. The main benefit of these general-purpose combining
diacritical marks is, that they can be applied to many characters if
needed. I don’t think, it is a good idea to remove this versatility. At
least one example exists, where someone used the combining candrabindu
for a constructed language as the upside-down counterpart to the
combining fermata. http://randomguy32.de/conlang/000/writing/

Best regards,

Marius


Am Do., 18 Apr 2019 20:59:53 +0100
schrieb Richard Wordingham via Unicode :

> Is there any reason why U+0310 COMBINING CANDRABINDU has scx=Inherited
> rather than scx=Latn?  The only language I've seen the character used
> in is Sanskrit, and the only script I've seen it in is the Latin
> script.
> 
> Richard. 



pgp0mBzA7K7wW.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP


Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu

2019-04-18 Thread James Kass via Unicode



The Guara Times font maps Cyrillic letters (Л,л,М,м) with chandrabindus 
in the P.U.A. of the font.  This can be done without the P.U.A. using 
U+0310:  Л̐,л̐,М̐,м̐


http://www.chakra.lv/blog/2016/10/19/transliterating-sanskrit-into-russian/

On 2019-04-18 7:59 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:

Is there any reason why U+0310 COMBINING CANDRABINDU has scx=Inherited
rather than scx=Latn?  The only language I've seen the character used
in is Sanskrit, and the only script I've seen it in is the Latin
script.

Richard.