Ken, I stand corrected. Long syllabic /r l/ as well as Assamese /r v/ are indeed additions beyond the ISCII code chart. My objection, however, was not against their inclusion but against their placement. I understand why long syllabic /r l/ could not be placed with the vowels, but why were Assamese /r v/ assigned U+09F0 and U+09F1 instead of U+09B1 and U+09B5 respectively?
> --- Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the case of the Assamese letters, these > additions separate out the *distinct* forms for > Assamese /r/ and /v/ from the Bangla forms, and > *enable* correct sorting, rather than inhibiting it. I fail to understand why Assamese /r v/ wouldn't be correctly sorted if placed in U+09F0 and U+09F1. Why do they need to be separated out from the Bangla forms in order to enable correct sorting? > The addition of the long syllabic /r/ and /l/ > *enables* the representation of Sanskrit > material in the Bengali script, and the code > position in the charts is immaterial. As stated earlier, my objection is not against their inclusion, but against their positioning on the code chart. Why is their relative position in the chart immaterial for sorting? If it is merely because there are script-specific sorting mechanisms already in place, then it's just a bad excuse for a sloppy job. I sincerely hope there is more to it than just that. > But be that as it may, they (TDIL) have nothing to > do with the code point choices in the range > U+09E0..U+09FF ... If this is indeed the case, then I must say it's rather unfortunate. As a full corporate member representing the Republic of India, the Ministry of Information Technology should have had a BIG say in the matter. Were they ever consulted on the issue? Did they try to intervene suo moto? Will a Unicode official kindly let us know? Best, -Gautam. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
