bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#9336: 24.0.50; No way to input character #xbb4 using ta-itrans


From: Kenichi Handa
Subject: bug#9336: 24.0.50; No way to input character #xbb4 using ta-itrans
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:42:21 +0900

In article <address@hidden>, Jambunathan K <address@hidden> writes:

>>> (Rationale: This is how it's usually mapped by a layman even outside of
>>> ta-itrans)
> >
> > "zha" would be more appropriate.  Just to pick two contemporary names
> > that have ழ in them, we have Azhagiri and Kanimozhi.

> (For Kenichi's benefit) The two things that you have cited above are
> Tamil people names.

Thank you for the info. 

> Are you making the suggestion - "zha" - based on an actual itrans
> implementation? Within Emacs, if I type - `zha' - I get `ழ்ஹ' and mapping
> `ha' to `ஹ' seems very reasonable to me.

> IMO, there seems to be some de-facto or normative standard on how
> english sequences are mapped to tamil alphabets (or any given language?)
> via itrans. In that case, there is nothing much Emacs can do but follow
> the crowd.

> I am a layman user, I don't have any prior experience with other
> ta-itrans implementations and Kenichi is the expert here.

All I know about itrans is that it's originally a method for
roman transliteration of Indic scripts, not an input method.
So, using itrans as an input method may reveal various
shortages/conflicts of the original itrans definition, and
thus we must extend/modify the mapping between keys and
chars.  But, I don't know what kind of defact standard there
are.

For the above case, which is more convenient?
(1) "zha" -> "ழ்ஹ" and "za" -> "ழ"
(2) "zha" -> "ழ", "za" -> "zஅ", and "zhha" -> "ழ்ஹ".

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]