P4
Consonant RA Rule R2 doesn't hold true when the dead consonant precedes any
independent vowel. (It holds true if the dead consonant precedes any live
consonant) This is the case regardless which font is used. (reproduce with
jComboPanelHindiR2_2.java, attached)
Is this rule not supported?
=======================================
Attached here is Doug's comments:
Min-Chi:
Eric agrees with you that this is how the rules read, and how it seems
the text
should actually render-- though we have to look into it. Neither MS nor
CDAC (the group in India who created iLeap) do this.
[Eric's comments follow--
RA HALANT before an independent vowel renders as a dead RA using
Uniscribe
and in iLeap, so I guess that what we're doing is OK. My reading of the
rule, however, is the same as Min-Chi's - it reads like it should render
with a REPH on the vowel. I'm suspicious that this is really the right
thing to do, since the vowel II (U+0908) already has a mark on it that
looks like a REPH...]
Doug
=======================================================
The font with Hindi glyphs is not integrated in build as of Merlin b43, this is filed so we can keep track of the problem.
minchi.tien@eng 12-07-00
-----
The Unicode committe _still_ hasn't decided what to do about this.
[Eric forwarded some email between Joe Becker (Xerox) and Jim Agenbroad (Library of Congress) about this issue, which has been kicking around since 1999.]
Here are Joe's messages. At this point, my inclination is to do nothing and
hope that the "bad" spelling is depricated, in which case I won't *ever*
have to do anything...
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: James E. Agenbroad [mailto:###@###.###
Sent: Mon, March 26, 2001 12:58 PM
To: Joe Becker
Subject: Devanagari Example
Monday, March 26, 2001
Joe,
I just sent you a fax (650 813-6915) with copies of pages from a
Sanskrit grammar written by an Indian which show that the glyph in Unicode
3.0 figure 9-3, fourth example, is considered to consist of RA and the
vocalic R vowel sign--not a dead RA followed by an independent vocalic
R. ...
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( ###@###.### )
----- Forwarded by Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM on 03/29/2001 01:36 PM -----
"Becker, Joseph"
<Joseph.Becker@pahv. To: "James E. Agenbroad" <###@###.###>
xerox.com> cc: Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, Myself
<###@###.###>
03/27/2001 11:00 AM Subject: RE: Devanagari Example
What to do is submit a proposal paper to be placed on the agenda of UTC #87
(= L2 #184) meeting 3rd week of May.
Additionwise, the proposed text is still sitting in the tiresome message
archive of July 1999, when Mark vetoed it (in the editorial committee, not
UTC) at the last moment.
There was no reason for Mark's veto, but the straw he finally grasped at
was
that we could not prove that the consonant-vowel spelling was established
ISCII encoding usage. Since now more than ever there must actually be such
a thing as an established ISCII encoding usage, even in this rare case, I
think you somehow need to dig up and present some convincing proof of that.
That might be necessary and sufficient to get the UTC to approve the
addition. Getting Glenn's anomalous spelling *deprecated* after all these
years might be slipping past possibility ... or maybe not.
Joe
----- Forwarded by Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM on 03/29/2001 01:36 PM -----
"Becker, Joseph"
<Joseph.Becker@pahv. To: Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
xerox.com> cc: Myself <###@###.###>
Subject: RE: Devanagari Consonant RA Rule R2
03/26/2001 10:42 AM
Erikku,
Hello, omedetou, akemashite, etc.!
I finally had the accidental co-occurence of time and courage to re-open
this hideous subject ... indeed it has not slank away on its own yet. I
found and went through the whole dreadful discussion of its handling in the
Unicode 3.0 book.
In a word, dame for you: the discussion never even considered *removing*
Glenn Adams's bogacious "conjunct" spelling alluded to in Rule R2, the
discussion centered only on whether or not to *add* the visibly correcter
"consonant-vowel" spelling.
The latter addition, in draft called Rule R4a, was vetoed at the last
moment
by Mark Davis for no reason (as documented in catfight.mpg), but its
inclusion would not have helped you near-term with the exceptionality of
Rule R2. It could have helped long-term by paving the way for the later
deprecation of the anomalous spelling, perhaps that is why Mark quashed it.
I am sitting here trying to think of some equal but opposite upbeat news to
close with, but that might delay this response yet another month, so I'll
just say
Gambatte,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Becker, Joseph [mailto:###@###.###
Sent: Mon, July 12, 1999 9:46 AM
To: James E. Agenbroad
Subject: Encoding of Devanagari RR
Hmm, proofing the Devanagari chapter, I see we have not fully dealt with
the
fact that the Devanagari syllable R + R is now presented in two places.
This exceptional syllable has an ordinary consonant-vowel interpretation,
but its rendering suggests a (unique) conjunct interpretation. The
conjunct
interpretation maps to an alternative encoding, yielding possibly two
different underlying spellings for this syllable:
consonant-vowel:
0930 DEVANAGARI LETTER RA
0943 DEVANAGARI VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC R
conjunct:
0930 DEVANAGARI LETTER RA
094D DEVANAGARI SIGN VIRAMA
090B DEVANAGARI LETTER VOCALIC R
The conjunct spelling was already given in v2.0, as now a result of the
addition of Rule R4a, in the current draft we have both of these spellings
presented:
consonant-vowel:
Rule R4a, p. 201
RA[n] + RA[vs] -> R[n] + RA[sup]
conjunct:
Example (4), Figure 9-3, p. 198 -- in v2.0 it's Figure 6-12, p.
6-36
RA[d] + RI[n] -> RI[n] + RA[sup]
Should we be offering two different spellings for the same thing?
Joe
doug.felt@eng 2001-03-29
independent vowel. (It holds true if the dead consonant precedes any live
consonant) This is the case regardless which font is used. (reproduce with
jComboPanelHindiR2_2.java, attached)
Is this rule not supported?
=======================================
Attached here is Doug's comments:
Min-Chi:
Eric agrees with you that this is how the rules read, and how it seems
the text
should actually render-- though we have to look into it. Neither MS nor
CDAC (the group in India who created iLeap) do this.
[Eric's comments follow--
RA HALANT before an independent vowel renders as a dead RA using
Uniscribe
and in iLeap, so I guess that what we're doing is OK. My reading of the
rule, however, is the same as Min-Chi's - it reads like it should render
with a REPH on the vowel. I'm suspicious that this is really the right
thing to do, since the vowel II (U+0908) already has a mark on it that
looks like a REPH...]
Doug
=======================================================
The font with Hindi glyphs is not integrated in build as of Merlin b43, this is filed so we can keep track of the problem.
minchi.tien@eng 12-07-00
-----
The Unicode committe _still_ hasn't decided what to do about this.
[Eric forwarded some email between Joe Becker (Xerox) and Jim Agenbroad (Library of Congress) about this issue, which has been kicking around since 1999.]
Here are Joe's messages. At this point, my inclination is to do nothing and
hope that the "bad" spelling is depricated, in which case I won't *ever*
have to do anything...
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: James E. Agenbroad [mailto:###@###.###
Sent: Mon, March 26, 2001 12:58 PM
To: Joe Becker
Subject: Devanagari Example
Monday, March 26, 2001
Joe,
I just sent you a fax (650 813-6915) with copies of pages from a
Sanskrit grammar written by an Indian which show that the glyph in Unicode
3.0 figure 9-3, fourth example, is considered to consist of RA and the
vocalic R vowel sign--not a dead RA followed by an independent vocalic
R. ...
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( ###@###.### )
----- Forwarded by Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM on 03/29/2001 01:36 PM -----
"Becker, Joseph"
<Joseph.Becker@pahv. To: "James E. Agenbroad" <###@###.###>
xerox.com> cc: Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, Myself
<###@###.###>
03/27/2001 11:00 AM Subject: RE: Devanagari Example
What to do is submit a proposal paper to be placed on the agenda of UTC #87
(= L2 #184) meeting 3rd week of May.
Additionwise, the proposed text is still sitting in the tiresome message
archive of July 1999, when Mark vetoed it (in the editorial committee, not
UTC) at the last moment.
There was no reason for Mark's veto, but the straw he finally grasped at
was
that we could not prove that the consonant-vowel spelling was established
ISCII encoding usage. Since now more than ever there must actually be such
a thing as an established ISCII encoding usage, even in this rare case, I
think you somehow need to dig up and present some convincing proof of that.
That might be necessary and sufficient to get the UTC to approve the
addition. Getting Glenn's anomalous spelling *deprecated* after all these
years might be slipping past possibility ... or maybe not.
Joe
----- Forwarded by Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM on 03/29/2001 01:36 PM -----
"Becker, Joseph"
<Joseph.Becker@pahv. To: Eric Mader/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
xerox.com> cc: Myself <###@###.###>
Subject: RE: Devanagari Consonant RA Rule R2
03/26/2001 10:42 AM
Erikku,
Hello, omedetou, akemashite, etc.!
I finally had the accidental co-occurence of time and courage to re-open
this hideous subject ... indeed it has not slank away on its own yet. I
found and went through the whole dreadful discussion of its handling in the
Unicode 3.0 book.
In a word, dame for you: the discussion never even considered *removing*
Glenn Adams's bogacious "conjunct" spelling alluded to in Rule R2, the
discussion centered only on whether or not to *add* the visibly correcter
"consonant-vowel" spelling.
The latter addition, in draft called Rule R4a, was vetoed at the last
moment
by Mark Davis for no reason (as documented in catfight.mpg), but its
inclusion would not have helped you near-term with the exceptionality of
Rule R2. It could have helped long-term by paving the way for the later
deprecation of the anomalous spelling, perhaps that is why Mark quashed it.
I am sitting here trying to think of some equal but opposite upbeat news to
close with, but that might delay this response yet another month, so I'll
just say
Gambatte,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Becker, Joseph [mailto:###@###.###
Sent: Mon, July 12, 1999 9:46 AM
To: James E. Agenbroad
Subject: Encoding of Devanagari RR
Hmm, proofing the Devanagari chapter, I see we have not fully dealt with
the
fact that the Devanagari syllable R + R is now presented in two places.
This exceptional syllable has an ordinary consonant-vowel interpretation,
but its rendering suggests a (unique) conjunct interpretation. The
conjunct
interpretation maps to an alternative encoding, yielding possibly two
different underlying spellings for this syllable:
consonant-vowel:
0930 DEVANAGARI LETTER RA
0943 DEVANAGARI VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC R
conjunct:
0930 DEVANAGARI LETTER RA
094D DEVANAGARI SIGN VIRAMA
090B DEVANAGARI LETTER VOCALIC R
The conjunct spelling was already given in v2.0, as now a result of the
addition of Rule R4a, in the current draft we have both of these spellings
presented:
consonant-vowel:
Rule R4a, p. 201
RA[n] + RA[vs] -> R[n] + RA[sup]
conjunct:
Example (4), Figure 9-3, p. 198 -- in v2.0 it's Figure 6-12, p.
6-36
RA[d] + RI[n] -> RI[n] + RA[sup]
Should we be offering two different spellings for the same thing?
Joe
doug.felt@eng 2001-03-29