Firstly, let me confirm that no-one from Microsoft reads this newsgroup.
There may be individual Microsoft employees who read it on their own time
(although I doubt it), but it is not officially monitored by Microsoft. I
don't know about Google Research but one thing they are not, is connected to
Microsoft.
Secondly, this seems to be a discussion going nowhere. What grammatim says
makes sense, what you, Ashok, say does not make sense to me, although I do
accept that that may be due, in part, to my lack of knowledge of Indian
scripts.
Unicode is a standard supported by all modern software, in so much as
special support is needed, but all that unicode really is is a cross
reference of code points to named characters. Individual fonts can use
whatever glyphs they like to depict the characters at particular code
points.
Mangal, as installed on my machine, has 110 glyphs at code points in the
Devanagari range (0900 to 097F) and I have no reason to think there is
anything wrong with them. Are you saying that your version of the font does
not have these glyphs? Or that there is something wrong with them? Or are
you saying that you have problems entering them from the keyboard? Or what?
--
Enjoy,
Tony
www.WordArticles.com
"Ashok Kothare" wrote in message
...
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.
On Sep 18, 7:45 am, Ashok Kothare
wrote:
As I had said in my last mail I have loaded a page on my blog. the
page is
"Grammatim". Please log on the blog and read the page. Also ask
other
interested in the topic to read it. My
blog,http://kothareashok.blog.co.in
Ashok Kothare
"grammatim" wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:03 am, Ashok Kothare
wrote:
Dear Grammatim, you are very sure that everything has been done
to make
windows suitable to write in Indian languages.
"Everything"? I have no idea what "everything" might be. You can
type
in the 11 standard Indian scripts without adding anything at all
to
Windows out-of-the-box. Conjuncts are formed, and matras are
placed,
automatically as you type the sounds of the letters in the order
they
are spoken -- you don't even need to type i before the
consonant, or
o both before and after (Bengali). Once you have selected the
(or a)
keyboard for your language, you begin to get characters in that
script, in whatever the system's default might be. For some it's
Arial
Unicode, for some it's Sylfaen, for some (Urdu, Sindhi), it's
Times
New Roman.
I am afraid you are not
correct. Another point you have put is that unicode has been
finalized for
Indian languages is also not correct. If you see unicodes used
by fonts such
as 'mangal' you will see that they are not placed on the
unicodes
recommended for Indian languages but they are put on other
nondescript
unicode places.
It is hardly Unicode's fault that some font designers have failed
to
adhere to Unicode standards. I have not heard of "mangal"; for
what
script is it a font?
If windows do that how that can be justified? I want
"Windows" do not "do that." Font designers do that. Maybe
"mangal" is
20 years old and was made before computers could handle more than
128
or 256 characters.
Microsoft to be a perfect instrument to get proper unicodes to
be used for
these languages. I will add one more page to my blog soon to
show you the
difference in what unicodes are used by microsoft Indian fonts
and what are
the actuall unicodes offered by the unicode. I want to know why
microsoft is
doing this? Is it justified to put fonts of a langauge on wrong
unicodes? My
Certainly not.
intentions are that let us do something that is, in given
times, helpful to
users in India. Please do not misunderstand me. I want to know
what Bob has
to say. Please visit my blog after 8 days to avoid any
misunderstanding. I
Post the link here next week.
have internet server problem here and that makes it difficult
to do posting
in time sorry for that. Remember, we Indians wish to use
english version of
windows and want to write our messages in Indian languages
since that is most
convenient at this time. We often toggle between both languages
and for that
english version is most suitable. with regards.
I of course use English version of Windows, and I have no trouble
typing in any of the Indian languages. I can toggle between
English
and any of the languages either by choosing them from the
Language
Bar, or by pressing LeftAlt+Shift, or by assigning a specific
shortcut
to each keyboard (though because I use many, many different
scripts in
my work, I have different selections of keyboards installed at
different times, so I don't bother with specific shortcuts except
for
getting back to English.)
"grammatim" wrote:
Well, to get the link, I had to go to Bob Buckland's message.
The "essay" contains a great deal of blather. I gather
"orkut" is an
Indian ISP?
You seem to have two points. (1) Transliteration is not
necessary.
(2) Windows cannot properly handle Indian scripts.
(1) is a matter of opinion and is correct in some
circumstances,
incorrect in others.
(2), as I and others told you more than half a year ago, is
simply
incorrect. Every version of Windows since I-don't-know-when
has
provided full support for typing in the 11 standard scripts
of India
(roman, Nagari, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Bengali, Oriya, Kannada,
Telugu,
Tamil, Malayalam, Urdu), with a dedicated keyboard for each.
All of
them have been included in Unicode since Version 1.0 nearly
20 years
ago.
On Sep 14, 5:09 am, Ashok Kothare
wrote:
I am very sorry that the page on my blog was written next
day due to internet
problem at my end. Now you can read my article on the page
Transliteration
and please write back for your comments here and also if
possible on the
comment box of the blog. That page shall remain on the blog
for some time
now, for all interested observers. Friend Grammtin, please
note.
"Bob Buckland ?:-)" wrote:
Hi Ashok,
Can you provide the link to the specific document you're
referring to in your post? The Transliteration article
on your blog at
http://kothareashok.blog.co.in/transliteration/
basically says 'coming soon'. 
==============
"Ashok Kothare" Ashok
wrote in message
...
Friends, I am resuming the dialogue after about seven
months. Somebody told
me that transliteration is the answer to the problem of
Indian language
inclusion as default font. I have studied the suggestion
and come with reply.
that reply is in details and so I have put it on my blog.
Please visit my
blog to read it. It is a research paper too lengthy for
this box. URL of my
blog
http://kothareashok.blog.co.in
and you may reply to it on this site as well as on the
comment box. -