Second from left is correct! Before ISCII, individuals used to create TTF font files using ASCI code. Because there were not enough glyphs, that was the time-frame, when this no-traditional art was evolved.
Unicode Inc shall NOT repeat it as excuse. While Indus like Sharmaji Maheshji et al seating why is this happening :) Is this ISO guidelines? Thanks, Tulasi From: Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:31 AM Subject: Re: Sanskrit nasalized L To: tulasi <[email protected]> Cc: Unicode Discussion <[email protected]>, [email protected] 2011/6/28 tulasi <[email protected]>: > first-image > line-1 - first & last word, CANDRABINDU is tied up with 1st letter. Effectively, CANDRABINDU is tied to the first letter (using its half-form). This suggests effectively the encoding as <LA,VIRAMA,CANDRABINDU> for the first letter, followed by a regular <LA> for the second one. > it is not tied up with WWA (or VVA). probably computer print using ASCII > based TTF fonts. No such font exist. Indic fonts are either built on top of regular Unicode assignments, or based on legacy ISCII, not ASCII. Yes, the half-form of the first letter (on the left) is probably not the best rendering, when a vertically stacked conjunct would be preferable (using a full form of the first letter, and stacking the second letter below it in its subjoined form). But the scanned JPEG shows that the non-stacked side-by-side rendering of the conjuct is acceptable. Without the CANDRABINDU, the two letters would become <LA,VIRAMA,LA>, which would be also renderable side-by-side (with the first LA using its half-form, and the second one using the regular full form), or in a stacked conjuct (with the first LA using its full form, and the second one using the subjoined form) which is preferably rendered. > line-2 CANDRABINDU is not tied up with LLA but with vowel sign on top of GA. No. Even if CANDRABINDU is visually touching/colliding with the vowel sign on top of GA, it is still separate from it. The collision is accidental due to the limited space to place it (clearly preferably on top of the center of the first LA in its half form). All 3 occurences of candrabindu in the two scanned lines of text are placing it over the half form of the first letter of an horizontally rendered conjunct. It looks like the horizontal rendering is probably the best choice here (and not a technical fallback) as it clearly indicates with which letter of the conjunct the candrabindu is associated. > in all cases if a conjunct has a vowel sign like in 2nd image then > CANDRABINDU moves right side of the vowel sign. > > question > (a) then which one is incorrect in second image? The first on the left side is effectively desired, the second one will be incorrect for rendering the first nasalized halanted LA in <LA,VIRAMA,CANDRABINDU,LA> but could be produced by <LA,VIRAMA,LA,CANDRABINDU> for rendering the second full LA with nasalisation. And yes, stop calling conjuncts made of halanted LA plus full LA as "LLA" : Shiramana is right. This conjunct (without candrabindu) must be named "l_la.sub" (this would occur in standard glyph naming for building OpenType feature tables) or just "L-LA" (preferable if referencing it the conjuct in a Unicode sequence alias name, where the dot is not allowed). If we were naming the full conjuct with the candrabindu in OpenType with "standard" glyph naming rules, we would refer to it as "l_candrabindu_la.sub". > From: Shriramana Sharma <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: Sanskrit nasalized L > To: Unicode Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > On 2011-Jun-23 10:27, tulasi wrote: >> >> It is natural to place CANDRABINDU on top of vertical bar. >> So CANDRABINDU in this case shall seat on top of regular LA of LLA. Not here. Clearly. >> Moreover that LLA is an ugly one. May be. But within texts with limited line height, it is common to replace vertically stacked conjuncts with subjoined letters, by conjuncts using half forms. Both are correct, and are a matter of preference (or technical limitations in the renderers, or preference to avoid extending the line height to save paper space). >> Two-tire (one top of other) LLA is preferred choice (neutral). I agree. But still, this still means that the candrabindu must lie over the middle of the first letter, even if then it is ambiguous to which one (first halanted LA in full form, or second LA subjoined at the same horizontal position) it is bound semantically. So the horizontally rendered conjunct becomes much less ugly as it clearly allows to visually identify with which LA the candrabindu will be linked. > This is "tire"some! ;) > > Even if the top-bottom ligature-style L.LA <http://l.la/> is used, the candrabindu should > go after LA + Virama and not at the end of the syllable as you are > suggested. I also agree with this encoding <LA,VIRAMA,CANDRABINDU, LA>. Even if some fonts are currently dropping the half-form of the first LA and adopt the full form of the first LA with a halant mark below it (this is a correct fallback for fonts not recognizing all possible half forms). > See attached the difference in rendering versus actual attested > usage. > > (BTW it's obvious you're new to Unicode else you wouldn't call > L.LA<http://l.la/>as LLA > which means a different thing -- have you even read the charts?)
