On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:15:59 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> For the Grantha examples above, Grantha (1) displays much better
> here. It seems daft to put a spacing character between a base
> character and any mark which is supposed to combine with the base
> character.
Although it's not re
On 2020-01-04 12:50 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
dev2: कः꣡
dev3: क꣡ः
Grantha: (1) 𑌕𑍧𑌃
(2) 𑌕𑌃𑍧
The second Grantha spelling is enabled by a Harfbuzz-only change to
the USE categorisations. It treats Grantha visarga and spacing
anusvara as though inpc=Top rather than inpc=Rig
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 20:20:34 +
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> There's a project whose basis I can't find to convert Indian Indic
> rendering at least to use the USE. Now, according to the
> specification of the USE, visarga, anusvara and cantillation marks
> are all classified as vow
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:07:04 -0800
Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 2020, at 12:20, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
>> wrote:
>> So, the problem should already be solved for Grantha, and,
>> if the plans come to fruition, will work with a font whose
>> Devanagari script tag is 'dev3'. Ho
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 07:52:55 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> > I've been looking at Microsoft's specification of Devanagari
> > character order. In
> >
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/script-development/devanagari,
> > the consonant syllable ends
> >
> > [N]+[A] + [<
On 2020-01-02 1:04 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote in a thread deriving
from this one,
> Have you found a definition of the ISCII handling of Vedic characters?
No. It would be helpful. ISCII apparently wasn't really used much. It
would also be helpful to know the encoding order in any legac
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 20:11:04 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> On 2020-01-01 11:17 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> > That's exactly the sort of mess that jack-booted renderers are
> > trying to minimise. Their principle is that there should be only
> > one encoding per shape
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 23:09:49 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> On 2020-01-01 8:11 PM, James Kass wrote:
> > It’s too bad that ISCII didn’t accomodate the needs of Vedic
> > Sanskrit, but here we are.
>
> Sorry, that might be wrong to say. It's possible that it's Unicode's
> adaptation of
On 2020-01-01 8:11 PM, James Kass wrote:
It’s too bad that ISCII didn’t accomodate the needs of Vedic Sanskrit,
but here we are.
Sorry, that might be wrong to say. It's possible that it's Unicode's
adaptation of ISCII that hinders Vedic Sanskrit.
On 2020-01-01 11:17 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> That's exactly the sort of mess that jack-booted renderers are trying
> to minimise. Their principle is that there should be only one encoding
> per shape, though to be fair:
>
> 1) some renderers accept canonical equivalents.
> 2
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 01:19:02 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> A workaround until some kind of satisfactory adjustment is made might
> be to simply use COLON for VISARGA. Or...
>
> VISARGA ⇒ U+02F8 MODIFIER LETTER RAISED COLON
> ANUSVARA⇒U+02D9 DOT ABOVE
>
> ...as long as the font(s) incl
A workaround until some kind of satisfactory adjustment is made might be
to simply use COLON for VISARGA. Or...
VISARGA ⇒ U+02F8 MODIFIER LETTER RAISED COLON
ANUSVARA⇒U+02D9 DOT ABOVE
...as long as the font(s) included both those characters.
य॑ यॆ॑
य॑ं -- anusvara last
यॆ॑ं -- "
य॑: --
On 2019-12-21 6:27 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
However, even the simplest Vedic sequence (not involving Sama Vedic or
multiple tone marker combinations) like दे॒वेभ्य॑ः throws up a dotted
circle, and one is expected (see developer feedback in that bug
report) to input the visarga b
https://github.com/harfbuzz/harfbuzz/issues/2017 should provide the
context for this.
Ever since the early days of Devanagari Unicode, scholars like me
dealing with Vedic Sanskrit orthography have been experiencing this
problem, but chalked it upto early days and consequent insufficient
support fo
14 matches
Mail list logo
