Handling Malayalam "NTA" issue for Lohit2

pravin.d.s at gmail.com pravin.d.s at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 00:28:52 CST 2014

On 10 January 2014 23:16, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil at gmail.com> wrote:

> pravin.d.s at gmail.com said on Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:45:00PM +0530,:
>     - Lohit 1 is supporting sequence (A) from long time (even before
>  > Unicode 5.1), so for the backward compatibility lohit2 should support
> the
>  > same.
>  >
> I believe thet the UTC wanted to maintain compatibility with some
> _beta_ version of Microsoft's some software in making the choice that
> it did regarding the /nta/ sequence.
>  >     Presently i am in favour of not supporting Unicode defined
>  > sequence (B) in lohit2 and keep on using (A) which is used in Lohit
>  > fonts family from long time.
> Allow me to go on a nostalgia trip. Almost a decade back, the then SMC
> team came accross what was obvious lack of clarity in the UTS. They
> decided, against my advise, to follow the suggestions in OpenType
> definition. To be fair, then, I had no alternative to offer, except
> not to implement the suggestion in the OpenType pages. Microsoft
> ultimately waited for some clarity in the UTS before implementing
> anything. and the communimity efforts went (mostly) in vain.

I was wondering how ISCII was handling this.

> Right now, given a choice between supporting legacy data and
> standards, I will choose the latter, with some kind of jugaad based on
> the PUA / glyph name to enable support for legacy data.

Yeah, as said above will support both legacy and standard sequence.

> Not the ideal situation, but when politics get the uppoer hand over
> merits, efficiency and appropriateness always takes a backseat.

That is pain point of standardization activities.

Thanks & Regards,
Pravin Satpute
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20140113/1b958702/attachment.html>

More information about the Unicode mailing list