Anonymous

Changes

From SMC Wiki

CDAC-IDN-Critique

325 bytes added, 08:05, 5 December 2010
# Visually identical glyphs are not the only entries to be considered for the variant table. Unicode chart itself has ambiguous dual representations for the same code point without canonical equivalence. An example for this is au signs in Tamil and Malayalam. ௗ- ௌ and ൗ - ൌ . The document does not consider these special cases.
#: CDAC's Response: The IDN policy does not permit the entry of syllables having structure CMM or MCM, where M stands for Matra or vowel sign. The ABNF rules takes care of this.
#:: That is wrong. ൗ - ൌ are neither CMM nor MCM case. It is single code pointed Mathra(vowel signs), appearing with consonants in CM format alone. While Inscript standard, even the one prepared by CDAC allows only to type one variant - ൌ and not the ൗ , why ൌ is not allowed in IDN? If a user cannot type a character using Inscript, how can he/she use it in IDN? Why there is a conflict between standards? CDAC need to answer this question again. - [[User:സന്തോഷ്|സന്തോഷ്]] 0900:0305, 2 5 December 2010 (PST)
# There are different orthographic forms for many glyphs in Malayalam. The variant table does not address different scenarios arising while considering the visual similarity. For example in traditional orthography TTA is written in stacked form (റ്റ). While in modern orthography it can be written in non-stacked form and this non-stacked form is visually identical to two RA sequence (ററ).
#:CDAC's Response : Only the stacked form is considered to be the conjunct TTA in modern orthography.