On Thursday 22 September 2005 13:01, Jamil Ahmed wrote: > Soumyadip Modak wrote: > >On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 13:40 +0600, Omi Azad wrote: > >>Deepayan Sarkar wrote: > >>>AFAICS, Debian itself is not Unicode 4.1.0 compliant yet (the unstable > >>> version of console-data has [1] > >>> /usr/share/unidata/UnicodeData-4.0.1d1b.txt). The change is the > >>> addition of one (moderately rare) code point, but the font editor we > >>> use (fontforge) doesn't know about it yet (I haven't checked the CVS > >>> version recently though). > >>> > >>>In any case, this is a minor problem (that will get solved eventually), > >>> and more importantly, completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. > >>> > >>>Deepayan > >> > >>But Unicode 4.1.0 works fine in my Ubuntu 5.04 box. Windows and it's > >>range of software also doesn't have any update yet, but that works fine > >>without any problem. It's just a character besides a particular code, so > >>there should not be any problem getting the output if we fix the font. > >>In fact I'm not getting any problem in both Windows and Linux. I just > >>added the codepoint in the glyph with FontLab (Windows) and it's working > >>well. You can check it by downloading any of the font from > >>http://www.ekushey.org. > > > >What Deepayanda probably meant is that there are significant parts of > >Debian-specific (and by extension Ubuntu-specific) software that is not > >Unicode 4.1.0 compliant. The compliance of the Desktop portion of the > >distribution doesn't mean we can call the distribution Unicode 4.1.0 > >compliant. Of course the modularity of a *nix system maybe a trifle too > >difficult to understand for people used to MS Windows :) > > So what is the solution now? :)
I don't see the problem yet. The only question would be one of policy. If a translated string involves a khanda-ta (which, for those who don't know, is the only Bengali 'character' whose encoding changed from 4.0.1 to 4.1.0), should it be encoded using the (a) 4.0.1 rule or (b) 4.1.0 rule ? I think (b) would be the obvious choice, as long as it doesn't crash anything. Upside: this would remove any future conversion headaches. Downside: at most cause khanda-ta's not to be displayed correctly. It is quite possible, as Omi suggests, that dropping in a replacement unicode 4.1-compatible font would solve any display problems. My guess is that this problem would be mostly irrelevant because the translated strings will have few (if any) khanda-ta's (which we cannot verify unless enough translations are done). So I suggest that we get on with the non-trivial task of translation rather than worry about unimportant problems. Deepayan ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Bengalinux-core mailing list Bengalinux-core@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bengalinux-core
