RE: Tamil C(S)ivamayam

"Bala" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.unicode.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi, 
Thank you for the reply.

Personally I think using the 0BF3 for civamayam and Day sign will be better.
Yes I will write a proposal with explaining the meaning different between
civamaym and day sign (including supportive evidence). I will write through
Sri Lanka ICTA.

Mean time I will take 1 week more to make sure there is no difference in
shapes. (Hope this thread will remain open) 

Thank you
Kind regards
Bala



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:54 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Subject: Re: Tamil C(S)ivamayam

Bala (Sri Lanka) wrote:

> The civamayam is very commonly used in Tamil text. In present days 
> compare to day sign and Tamil number 2, the civamayam symbol used very 
> frequently.  This been used in start of books, almost 90% of the Tamil 
> wedding cards and so on.
>
> But when I am looking at the shape I cannot see the difference between 
> Tamil day sign and civamayam.

Neither can I, though both are clearly different from the digit 2.

> (1)    Why there is no code point to the civamayam symbol in Unicode? 
> Is that because of the same/similar glyph?

Perhaps.  Has anyone ever proposed encoding it separately?  Is it 
encoded separately in any other coded character encoding?

> Or Tamils missed out to list to Unicode?

I wouldn't recommend going down this path.

> (2)    Are we expected to use the 0BF3 - Tamil Day sign for civamayam 
> as well?

In American English, the same coded character, U+002E, is used:

* as a sentence terminator
* as a marker for certain abbreviations
* as a decimal separator
* as part of an ellipsis indicating continuation
* as a separator between parts of a URL or IP address
* as part of a "dotted leader" in a table of contents
* and probably for other purposes as well.

If you wish to propose disunifying the civamayam symbol from U+0BF3, you 
will probably need to explain how that situation differs from the U+002E 
situation.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
NEW E-MAIL -->  dewell at roadrunner dot com
NEW URL -->  http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ^
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.