On 10 January 2014 23:16, Mahesh T. Pai <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] said on Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:45:00PM +0530,: > - Lohit 1 is supporting sequence (A) from long time (even before > > Unicode 5.1), so for the backward compatibility lohit2 should support > the > > same. > > > > I believe thet the UTC wanted to maintain compatibility with some > _beta_ version of Microsoft's some software in making the choice that > it did regarding the /nta/ sequence. > > > > Presently i am in favour of not supporting Unicode defined > > sequence (B) in lohit2 and keep on using (A) which is used in Lohit > > fonts family from long time. > > Allow me to go on a nostalgia trip. Almost a decade back, the then SMC > team came accross what was obvious lack of clarity in the UTS. They > decided, against my advise, to follow the suggestions in OpenType > definition. To be fair, then, I had no alternative to offer, except > not to implement the suggestion in the OpenType pages. Microsoft > ultimately waited for some clarity in the UTS before implementing > anything. and the communimity efforts went (mostly) in vain. >
I was wondering how ISCII was handling this. > > Right now, given a choice between supporting legacy data and > standards, I will choose the latter, with some kind of jugaad based on > the PUA / glyph name to enable support for legacy data. > Yeah, as said above will support both legacy and standard sequence. > > Not the ideal situation, but when politics get the uppoer hand over > merits, efficiency and appropriateness always takes a backseat. > That is pain point of standardization activities. Thanks & Regards, Pravin Satpute
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
