GNU bug report logs - #9336
24.0.50; No way to input character #xbb4 using ta-itrans

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:52:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 24.0.50

Done: "Kenichi Handa" <handa <at> m17n.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #38 received at 9336 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kenichi Handa <handa <at> m17n.org>
To: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com>
Cc: laksvij <at> gmail.com, 9336 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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 <814o068rbu.fsf <at> gmail.com>, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com> 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
handa <at> m17n.org




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 240 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.