[smc-discuss] ചില്ലക്ഷരങ്ങളുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയം

[Praveen A]

2011, ജനുവരി 19 12:09 രാവിലെ നു, Jayadevan Raja <jayadevanraja at gmail.com> എഴുതി:
> So Santhosh, the definition of (consonant + virama + ZWJ) <=> (Atomic
> Chillu) does not exist in the current Unicode standard, leading to the
> confusions, right? That is, is it correct to say that "the crux of the whole
> confusion lies in the absence of some essential equivalence definitions in
> the standard"?

We argued strongly for consider equivalance when unicode was
considering atomic chillus. But it was not accepted.

I don't think those who argued for atomic code points would agree to
equivalance, because the whole argument for atomic chillus was built
on the logic that, we should not need ZWJ, because they have zero
collition weight and clueless programmers (like those who work in
google) or poor/resource constrained companies might decide to strip
them, even though it is clearly defined where this can and cannot be
stripped. For example you cannot strip those in identifiers as per
“Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax”(TR31). See
http://thottingal.in/blog/2011/01/08/identifiers-in-indic-languages/
for more on this. So for clueless programmers and poor companies
ignoring standards, we decided to break the entire language, how
logical, right? If you understand who Unicode consortium works for, it
is not a surprice at all. If you have to choose between language and a
member company - it is clearly the member company that takes
precedence.

Exact quote:
"Those exceptions and character properties like 'default-ignorable'
are there for a reason. It is there to choose between a coarse or fine
tuned implementation based on the resources the implementor has. It is
a great thing for the language that, the script can remain intact in a
coarse implementaiton as well. For Malayalam, that will be more or
less true after chillu encoding. So it will be better supported in
resource constrained platforms or implementations." Cibu CJ, 2008,
ഫെബ്രുവരി 3 11:40 രാവിലെ on Indic mailing list.

There was even suggestion that having this confusion would generate
programming jobs! Height of insanity!

James Kass responded to my question: It clarifies there no way atomic
chillu supporters would accept the equivalance, because that means
joiners are legitimate again, which means atomic chillus was not
required in the first place.

"    4. But if you can't forbid the existing sequences what use is the newly
    added atomic chillus going to serve?


A.  It adds variant spellings, which is not always a good thing.
B.  It offers employment opportunities for people involved in
   file/character conversion.
C.  It offers more employment opportunities for anyone working
   in text processing, search engine technology, text display, and
   so forth because everything will need to be upgraded to support
   the new variant spellings."

See my blog post on the whole atomic chillu debate
http://www.j4v4m4n.in/2009/11/07/unicode-or-malayalam/

IDN and their decision to strip joiners were used as strogest
arguments for atomic chillus. വന്യവനിക/വന്‍യവനിക kind of examples
where the two words are only separated by a joiners. First, those
examples used were made up, second it was based on a wrong decision by
ICANN for IDN standard. Instead of correcting ICANN and demanding
acceptance for joiners in IDN, we decided to go for a 'low level work
around'.  If unicode consortium says you can continue to use ZWJ for
chillus, then the whole argument for atomic chillus falls like a deck
of cards - why was this introduced in the first place?

> Once Unicode defines this equivalence, the problems will be solved in
> everywhere like Gnome (you have already resolved the issue), QT (as Sebin
> said), Macintosh, Windows, International Components for Unicode, etcetera,
> right?

But the whole problem is Unicode's priorities lie somewhere else. You
can try and hit your head against the wall, we all did it. But if you
believe some benevalent, kind-hearted, concerned souls at unicode
would accept cononical equivalance if only we were to prove it is
required, try talking to them.

Praveen
-- 
പ്രവീണ്‍ അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില്‍
You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your
rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as
they follow the rules: laws and constitution.