Hi,
ISCII uses the halant in the way Apurva has described. Bangla(Bengali)
script originally uses conjunct forms only. Distinct half-forms have crept
into the script only in recent times[possibly due to typographical
constraints e.g. I have seen the word tax written as 'Ta' + 'ka' +
'hasanta'(Bengali for halanta) + 'sa']. If "khanda-ta" is not used and the
conjunct form is not available then it has become customary for applications
to show a small ta at the top succeeded by the joining character(in case of
ta + hasanta + character) and a bottom small ta(in case of character +
hasanta + ta). It is still application dependent on whether to use conjuncts
or "character+hasanta" format. Though I myself do not know of any place
where "ta+hasanto" can occur as a single form. If it is not forming a
conjunct, it should be displayed as a "khanda-ta".
I think Somnath's queries are answered. The 'khanda-ta'appears in the
font, not in the code page. When required, it is displayed by the software.
This saves collation problems for the developer(which you will find is in
the case of ka+nukta etc in Devanagari, both ka and nukta appearing
separately too).
I think at least the Khanda-ta problem should be clarified in the FAQ,
as this has been a recurring question. Another ,debated half-form has
already been handled in the FAQ. Namely the jophola(zophola).
the Unicode and ISCII approaches are inherently the same as far as I think.
regards,
Dhrubajyoti
On Mon, 20 May 2002 Apurva Joshi wrote :
>ISCII expects an 'Explicit Halant' to be used to display the halant
>forms of consonants. Sample sequence that is expected to display the
>first consonant in its halant form:
>Ka Halant Halant Ta -> KaHalant Ta
>
>While to retain the half form of a consonant, a 'Soft Halant' is
>expected, thus:
>Ka Halant Nukta Ta -> KaHalf Ta
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
><snip>
>
>This mailing list gets a LOT of questions asking why Indic
>half-consonants and other forms (such as khanda-ta) aren't separately
>encoded in Unicode. The Unicode model for Indic scripts is supposedly
>based on ISCII-1988. How were these problems handled in ISCII? Do
>users of ISCII have the same problems? Are there significant
>differences between the ISCII and Unicode approach to these issues, and
>if so, should Unicode spell out more explicitly what those differences
>are? (The FAQ talks rather generally about "in some cases" and "in
>other cases.") Or are these questions being asked by people who have
>previously used ASCII-hacked font solutions instead of ISCII?
>
>-Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
