[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Give up, grammatim. It's a lost cause. Ashok doesn't understand English well
enough to pursue this argument logically.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"grammatim" wrote in message
...
Once again, you demanded that I read your blog without providing a
link to it.

After scrolling back many messages to find the link, I discovered that
in the very first sentence of the new addition, you lied about what I
said. This is how it starts:

***
My stand

Grammatim suggests that new version of mangal has 127 characters and
they are in the right places given for Devnagari script. If this is
so, I mean, new version of mangal has 127 characters then that shows
that Microsoft is making one more blunder. How, I shall explain. Font
mangal I have is, according to Grammatim, very old font, it has 586
characters and new version has only 127 characters. What happened to
all other characters?
***

If you will look at the very message you are responding to, you will
see that I said that Mangal contains exactly the 110 characters
specified by Unicode.

Why should I read any essay that so blatantly lies in its opening
words? But I go on a few more words and see that you refer to "586
characters." Maybe you are somehow looking at the OpenType resources
that _underlie_ the 110 characters. The conjunct aksharas are not
individually typed when typing in Nagari; they are automatically
called by the computer. Please learn something about how to use your
computer before continuing to waste our time.



On Sep 24, 7:22 am, Ashok Kothare
wrote:
How do you know that no one from Microsoft reads this newsgroup? If so why
keep it? I have found that Google research reads my comments that means
Microsoft definetly knows what is going on in this group. Any way, your
advice is perfect but that does not solve the problem. I have put 'My
stand'
on the page "Grammatim" on my blog. May be it will clear the point. The
font
I am talking about is copyright 2001. Is it ancient? Unicode were all well
set by that time.



"grammatim" wrote:
No one from Microsoft reads this newsgroup.

If the ancient font you insist on continuing to use was made before
Unicode was established, you have no right to claim that it does not
match Unicode.

Just update your computer and download the free fonts.

On Sep 23, 3:57 am, Ashok Kothare
wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I want others in the discussion group to say
what they
want to say. Your argument does not justify violation of the unicode
by
Microsoft. Whether latest or very old the violation has been done.
That is
the point. I wish some person from the Microsoft connected with this
font
work come up and reply. May be you can arrange for it. May be, dear
Grammatim, you are not competent to answer my query.

"grammatim" wrote:
It has not been "eight days" since your last posting.

I have read your blog page called "Grammatim" and I have no idea
what
you are talking about.

Mangal font is on my computer -- installed with Vista last month;
until I get my old hard drive back, I cannot know whether some
recent
earlier version of Mangal did not comply with Unicode -- I opened it
with BabelMap and found that it contains every Unicode-specified
character in its proper place. (The glyph variants involved in
constructing conjuncts and adding matras are handled behind the
scenes, by the Devanagari IME.)

It is possible that you have a very, very, very old version of
Mangal,
if you do not have the 110 Mangal characters in their proper places.