Peter Jacobi asked:
Doug, Kenneth, All,
I', somewhat confused. I assume I'm lacking a lot
of background, but I can't interpolate successfully between
your answers:
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
mnemonic.
At 02:08 PM 10/25/03 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
So, in effect the UNICODE character names attempt to be
a unified transliteration scheme for all languages? Are these
principles laid down somewhere or is this more informal?
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
WG2 had published a guideline to naming characters.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:09 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Peter Jacobi
Subject: Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9
Peter Jacobi
Doug, Kenneth, All,
I', somewhat confused. I assume I'm lacking a lot
of background, but I can't interpolate successfully between
your answers:
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b)
reasonably mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They
expressly do *not* represent any form of transliteration or
transcription scheme.
That doesn't mean that some of our
At 02:08 PM 10/25/03 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They expressly do *not*
represent any form of transliteration or transcription scheme.
That doesn't mean that some of our conventions
Hi Kenneth, All,
Thank you for the quick clarification of matters.
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
U+0BA3 TAMIL LETTER NNA is the retroflex n, usually transliterated
as n-underdot U+006E, U+0323.
which is N UofKöln transliteration, I assume.
U+0BA9 TAMIL LETTER NNNA is the
Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi at gmx dot net wrote:
So, in effect the UNICODE character names attempt to be
a unified transliteration scheme for all languages? Are these
principles laid down somewhere or is this more informal?
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b)
On 25/10/2003 14:08, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Jacobi peter_jacobi at gmx dot net wrote:
So, in effect the UNICODE character names attempt to be
a unified transliteration scheme for all languages? Are these
principles laid down somewhere or is this more informal?
The Unicode character
Dear All,
Can someone clarify the status of
U+0BA3 TAMIL LETTER NNA and
U+0BA9 TAMIL LETTER NNNA
Comparing the glyph shapes with TSCII character tables
it is quite clear that U+0BA3 is NNNA and U+0BA9 is NNA.
This makes also a lot of sense for non-speakers of Tamil,
because it correctly
At 20:41 +0200 2003-10-24, Peter Jacobi wrote:
This makes also a lot of sense for non-speakers of Tamil, because it
correctly correlates the number of 'N's to the number of loops in
the glyph.
The transliteration in the naming convention is unrelated to this. In
any case names cannot be
Peter Jacobi asked:
Can someone clarify the status of
U+0BA3 TAMIL LETTER NNA and
U+0BA9 TAMIL LETTER NNNA
Comparing the glyph shapes with TSCII character tables
it is quite clear that U+0BA3 is NNNA and U+0BA9 is NNA.
This makes also a lot of sense for non-speakers of Tamil,
because
12 matches
Mail list logo
