________________________________
From: Satyakam Phukan <[email protected]>
To: Doug Ewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 8 July 2012, 5:49
Subject: Re: ASSAMESE AND BENGALI CONTROVERSY IN UNICODE STANDARD :::::
SOLUTIONS
I have got a two responses and one direct email till now, I will wait for some
more responses and then post my reply, so that I can clear my points together.
Dr Satyakam Phukan
________________________________
From: Doug Ewell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Satyakam Phukan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 8 July 2012, 3:37
Subject: Re: ASSAMESE AND BENGALI CONTROVERSY IN UNICODE STANDARD :::::
SOLUTIONS
1. The names of characters do not cause any kind of technical problem
in using them. Letters called “Latin” in Unicode are used to write hundreds of
languages that are not Latin. Different languages sometimes call the same
letter
by different names, and this is also not a technical problem.
2. Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic are different scripts, not just
different alphabets within the same script, and the analogy with
Bengali/Assamese is inappropriate. See Technical Note #26 for more
information.
3. The order of characters in a code chart does not cause any kind of
collation problem, because binary code point order is never assumed to be
correct for language-appropriate collation.
4. If Unicode lacks any letters needed to write a particular
language, and those letters cannot be formed from any combination of
existing characters, then they should be added.
This “controversy” appears to be an exercise in cultural pride. It is not
even a question of whether Unicode does or does not have a policy against
renaming letters or blocks, or creating duplicate encodings. The fact is that
there is no technical problem here that needs to be solved.
--
Doug
Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
