On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, bd satish
<address@hidden> wrote:
Think about the foreign phrases, say "Lux
soap" -> "लक्स् सोप्" .
Such phrases may be rare, but they do occur.
Indeed, one can happily type क्स् in either mappings.
क्श् is a different story.
Their frequency of occurence is immaterial for unambiguous mapping.
There is no ambiguity in nk =>
> I want a mapping which provides the most convenience to users, rather than sticking to some dogma[s].
This is not my dogma, it's a mathematical property called prefix
coding [1].
It is the dogma followed by many old mappings, ITRANS included.
Any rule can be expressed in the language of mathemtics and given a fancy name - that really means nothing before convenience to the user. Just because the term "injective functions" is defined in mathematics, it does not mean that one must forthwith switch to using an INSCRIPT keyboard.
but this is the only case of ambiguity
and should not be a premise for introducing more ambiguities.
jn, I would argue produces just such an ambiguity. When people type jn, what do they intend to produce? Do they really want to stick to this ITRANS mapping defined a decade and half ago?
All of the four alternatives (a] to d]) involve more keystrokes than
needed for typing say न्ज् which is currently simply " j + n ".
Of course, the idea is that imaginary/ alomst never typed glyphs can be longer. Just like code length in information theory, which among other places can be observed -to some extant- in the morse code.
Having said the above, I'd probably wait for the other maintainers' or
users' opinion on the matter.