On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michael Everson <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2012, at 14:32, Harshula wrote: > > Are you complaining about the inclusion of traditional native Sinhala > terms for the letters? e.g. From the code chart: > Yes, I was complaining about that. > > > The transliterated form appears there too > > Yes, I know, but this isn't "better". For the needs of users of the > standard (programmers, font makers, etc), the transliteration names KA KHA > GA GHA NGA etc would have been perfectly sufficient. The only reason we > don't use those as the names was a sort of "not-ISCII" nationalistic > feeling on the part of the Sri Lankan NB back when the script was being > encoded. I really don't know if that was a good idea. > Michael, list, Whenever I hear the repeated (and repetitive) argument that Unicode doesn't properly communicate and will destroy the grammatical structure of Vedic/Assamese/Sinhala/etc., I always picture some classroom full of children performing their copybook assignments over and over from The Unicode Standard. "Today's assignment is block U+...". Those would be pitiable kids indeed. If your script is encoded, do something useful with it. Encode, preserve, transmit something meaningful. I'm transcribing 100 year old family documents, besides trying to make sure ICU/CLDR correctly handle as many sociolinguistic preferences as possible. Your suggestion of writing a children's book is an excellent one, that should perhaps be considered as a FAQ answer. If The Unicode Standard is the only document to explain how Sinhala, Assamese, or any other language functions, that language is in some serious trouble and has need of some good authors. It's like expecting a piano factory to teach you the rules of harmony and composition.
