>But first of all the question: what would be the biggest benefit? New >languages?
My idea was, that the biggest benefit of a single hyphenation file for several Indic scripts could be, that it is possibly easier to maintain. Only one file has to be updated if a change in the pattern is necessary, not many. But I'm ready to admit, that this view of things might be naiive. I think Arthur has a good point in saying that it is probably not worth the effort to merge the hyphenation files into one. And I didn't know that there is a correspondence to the OOo hyphenation files. In that case I absolutely agree, that this correspondence should be preserved, despite the duplication of identical data. >> If Indic scripts hyphenate in the same way in all the languages that >> use the script >I've seen no evidence to let me think that they do, but I'm happy >about any input. Hmm... I think this discussion could be brought to an end more quickly by falsification: we need an example of two Indian languages with different hyphenation rules in the same script. Cheers, Manuel 2010/11/22 BPJ <b...@melroch.se>: > 2010-11-22 18:24, Dominik Wujastyk skrev: >> >> Those who write both transliterated Hindi and Sanskrit in the >> same publication will be glad of the ISO standard, I suppose. > > You have the problem in transliterated Hindi on its own, since > both graphemes occur there. In fact they are in complementary > distribution, and in a way which would be easy to automatize, > but being different graphemes they should be transliterated > differently. Retransliteration shouldn't require linguistic > analysis. > >> Typical standard's work: result of a committee that has a >> certain limited logic to it, but pays not enough attention to >> usage amongst professional groups, and consequently leaves >> nobody actually happy. > > Agreed. I'm definitely not a friend of standards for > standards' sake, but that applies to century-old standards > founded by people not considering modern languages too! > Of course you _can_ use different transliterations for Sanskrit and Hindi, > but IMHO transliteration should be by script and not > by language. But let's be thankful nobody came up with d̤ for ड़ > since IPA uses d̤ for ध! > > /bpj > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
