On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2012/7/5 Naena Guru <[email protected]>: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Anyway, consider the solutions already proposed in Sinhalese > >> Wikipedia. There are verious solutions proposed, including several > >> input methods supported there. But the purpose of these solutions is > >> always to generate Sinhalese texts perfectly encoded with Unicode and > >> nothing else. > > > > Thank you for the kind suggestion. The problem is Unicode Sinhala does > not > > perfectly support Singhala! The solution is for Sinhala not for Unicode! > I > > am not saying Unicode has a bad intention but an ill-conceived product. > The > > fault is with Lankan technocrats that took the proposal as it was given > and > > ever since prevented public participation. My solution is 'perfectly > encoded > > with Unicode'. > >> > >> > >> Yes thee may remain some issues with older OSes that have limited > >> support for standard OpenType layout tables. But there's now no > >> problem at all since Windows XP SP2. Windows 7 has the full support, > >> and for those users that have still not upgraded from Windows XP, > >> Windows 8 will be ready in next August with an upgrade cost of about > >> US$ 40 in US (valid offer currently advertized for all users upgrading > >> from XP or later), and certainly even less for users in India and Sri > >> Lanka. > > > > The above are not any of my complaints. > > Per Capita Income in Sri Lanka $2400. They are content with cell phones. > The > > practical place for computers is the Internet Cafe. Linux is what the > vast > > majority needs. > >> > >> > >> And standard Unicode fonts with free licences are already available > >> for all systems (not just Linux for which they were initially > >> developed); > > > > Yes, only 4 rickety ones. Who is going to buy them anyway? Still Iskoola > > Pota made by Microsoft by copying a printed font is the best. You check > the > > Plain Text by mixing Singhala and Latin in the Arial Unicode MS font to > see > > how pretty Plain text looks. They spent $2 or 20 million for someone to > come > > and teach them how to make fonts. (Search ICTA.lk). Staying friendly with > > them is profitable. World bank backs you up too. > > Sometime in 1990s when I was in Lanka, I tried to select a PC for my > printer > > brother. We wanted to buy Adobe, Quark Express etc. The store keeper > gave a > > list and asked us to select the programs. Knowing that they are > expensive, I > > asked him first to tell me how much they cost. He said that he will > install > > anything we wanted for free! The same trip coming back, in Zurich, the > guys > > tried to give me a illicit copy of Windows OS in appreciation for > > installing German and Italian (or French?) code pages on their computers. > > > >> there even exists solutions for older versions of iPhone > >> 4. OR on Android smartphones and tablets. > > > > Mine works in them with no special solution. It works anywhere that > supports > > Open Type -- no platform discrimination > >> > >> > >> No one wants to get back to the situation that existed in the 1980's > >> when there was a proliferation of non-interoperable 8 bit encodings > >> for each specific platform. > > > > I agree. Today, 14 languages, including English, French, German and > Italian > > all share the same character space called ISO-8859-1. Romanized Singhala > > uses the same. So, what's the fuss about? The font? Consider that as the > oft > > suggested IME. Haha! > >> > >> > >> And your solution also does not work in multilingual contexts; > > > > If mine does not work in some multilingual context, none of the 14 > languages > > I mentioned above including English and French don't either. > > > >> it does > >> not work with many protocols or i18n libraries for applications. > > > > i18n is for multi-byte characters. Mine are single-byte characters. As > you > > see, the safest place is SBCS. > > > >> Or it > >> requires specific constraints on web pages requiring complex styling > >> everywhere to switch fonts. > > > > Did you see http://www.lovatasinhala.com? May be you are confusing > Unicode > > Sinhala and romanized Singhala. Unicode Sinhala has a myriad such > problems. > > That is why it should be abandoned! Please look at the web site and say > it > > more coherently, if I misunderstood you. > > You are once again confusing the Sinhalese language wit hthe Sinhalese > script. May be Latin-1 is a good and sufficient script for > transcribing the language. But Unicode is not made for standardizing > transliterations. The script is what is being encoded, the way it is. > Even if this script is deffective on some aspect for the language. As > long as your transliteration scheme using Latin letters encodings is > showing Latin letters, it will be fine. > You are very kind. So now I have fulfilled your order by providing a link on the right side of the page to get rid of the Singhala font. > But a font that represents Latin letters using Sinhalese glyphs is > definitely broken. It will not work within multilingual contexts > except when using many font switches in specific rich-text document > formats. > I humbly suggest that you upgrade your software > > The problem you are trying to solve (proposing a new romanization for > the Sinhalese language) is confused with the goal of the Unicode > standard. Unicode is only about the encoding of scripts, not languages > or their possible multiple romanizations. > You are perfectly right, sir. > > And if you use Latin-1 only, you absolutely don't need any OpenType > feature in fonts, except for creating fine typographic effects such as > decovrative ligatures, advanced kerning rules, or controling alternate > forms such as swash letters or digits with variable heights. > I humbly suggest you read the OpenType standard: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/ > Mapping Sinhalese glyphs on top of Latin-1 to make the text simply > readable by native Sinhalese readers that can't decipher the Latin > script and your own romanization system is certainly not the way to > go. It is clearly not conforming any approved standard. > Most humbly, I need the approval of the user only.
