I think the 'Latn' in sa-Latn-t-sa-m0-iast is unnecessary, though it
partly depends on the range of the IAST transform.  If the
transformation can only convert to the Roman script then 'Latn' is
superfluous; I'm not sure if the extension is formally enough to rule
out Devanagari.  On the other hand, some people seem to think that
there is an IAST transformation to Cyrillic. 

However, as a locale for generated text, I feel it is inadequate.
Wouldn't the expansion rules generate saṃti from संति rather than santi
from सन्ति for 'they are'? Or have better fonts changed Indian practice?


Reply via email to