Christopher Fynn <chris dot fynn at gmail dot com> wrote: >> Here is the proof that OpenType standard defined the Singhala script >> wrongly. Also find a BNF grammar that describes it. >> http://ahangama.com/unicode/index.htm > > If you think there is a problem with OpenType and Singala, the place > to bring that up is on the OpenType list - not the Unicode list.
If you look at the page Naena cited, you'll see that he conflates Unicode and OpenType -- the page is titled "Unicode misunderstands Singhala script" -- and also that he considers the Unicode encoding of Sinhala to have been motivated by evil intentions: "However, this is threatened by the unscrupulous implementation of Unicode Sinhala code page specification closing door to objective criticism. A nearly decade long intransigence seems to be the willingness among the technocracy in the country to value personal wellbeing over obtaining a successful solution for digitizing Singhala." -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
