On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 01/17/2001 05:13:25 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>
> >> A + Ldep
> >
> >No such thing as Ldep in our model, so you'd have to rely on A + virama +
> L.
>
> Well, if a script had such behaviour, one possibility could be to propose a
> combining CONSONANT SIGN L for what we would be choosing to think of as a
> dependent form of the consonant. I.e. it may not be in an existing model,
> but for a new script one could create a new model. I hear you saying,
> though, that you think it would be preferable to fit this into the existing
> model that uses a virama.
>
>
>
> - Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Constable
>
> Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
> Tel: +1 972 708 7485
> E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
A virama after other than a consonant seems un-Indian. My novice's
understanding of virama is that it means: If the available rendering
capabilities allow it, consider the implicit 'a' expunged and combine the
preceding consonant with the next one to form a conjunct; otherwise
(i.e. if the rendering capabilities do not allow this) insert the virama
glyph beneath the preceding consonant. This would mean the last example
in Unicode 3.0 figure 9-3 could be ignored and instead RA + vocalic R
vowel sign (U+0930, U+0943 with no virama) would be rendered as
independent vocalic R (U+090B) with "reph hook" above it.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
Phone: 202 707-9612; Fax: 202 707-0955; US mail: I.T.S. Dev.Gp.4, Library
of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20540-9334 U.S.A.
