On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:47:49 +0530 (IST) delex r <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2011.09.27 22:56, delex r wrote: > >I hope a proposal will come in near future to include an additional > >letter 'Khya' which is as per our (Assamese)script is not considered > >as a biconsonantal conjunct as in Devanagari 0915 (Hex) + 0937 > >(Hex)and instead given a full fledged letter status.( I checked in > >my primary school alphabet book). It's quite common to consider K.SSA and J.NYA as independent consonants in Indic scripts. Such feelings did not sway Unicode, nor, I might add, the developers of ISCII. Similarly, I have Northern Thai booklets teaching the Tai Tham script that present a whole swathe of Tai Tham conjuncts with initial element U+1A49 TAI THEM LETTER HA as independent letters, and the reformed form of the script for Tai Lue (which otherwise mostly has no use for the subscript consonants) encodes them as such. However, no one suggested encoding them as indecomposable consonants for the Tai Tham script. > "Complelling case"....... Pls let us be explained more about it ? > Also pls inform how a " compelling case" may be made to Unicode to > make them update the linked pdf file by replacing "BENGALI" s by > "ASSAMESE"s at all appropriate places. What might be more appropriate is to replace 'Bengali-specific additions' by 'script-specific additions'. Judging by the presence of 'Gurmukhi-specific additions' in the Gurmukhi block, 'Bengali-specific additions' meant something like 'not ISCII' or 'absent from most ISCII-derived encodings'. These subheadings are, as far as I am aware, non-normative and an editorial matter. Richard.
