I think what some of us would like to see are detailed examples, citing specific characters and combinations, rather than general rhetoric, to support claims like this:
"Anyway my complaint is that Unicode Singhala is incomplete and wrong and that it has a deleterious effect on the language, one of the oldest in the world. What's aggravating is that they institutionalize errors as correct. Rev. Fr. Perera warned against this 80 years ago. I suppose I wouldn't have much to say if the 58 phonemes are used to replace the ones there. It will not happen." and these, from the web site: "[Romanized Singhala] is stable as it is safe from rules imposed by Unicode Consortium based on misinformation, and careless mangling of the language by disinterested bureaucrats." "Unicode Sinhala is a failure and cannot be fixed. That is because the premise on which it was designed is flawed." "Abugida is a writing system relegated to the sideline, as inherently incapable of a smooth interface with the computer. This is what Unicode Sinhala suffers from." -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
