William Overington asked: > > And nobody out there is volunteering to do it.
> I was told that I could commission it. That statement by Michael Everson was not a *permission*, but merely a statement of fact. Anyone can commission any expert they like, under contract to produce whatever output or specification the purchaser would like. That includes you. > I described what I thought was a > good design brief for the list and asked how much it would cost. I am still > waiting to find out. Well, the short answer is that it would cost a *lot*. But don't expect the Unicode discussion list to price out contracts for you. :-) > > A lot of the information needed to prepare the numbered list is apparently > in files, it is just that it is not available to people. Dream on. The information needed exists in books and other reference source in libraries, book shops, and other collections across India -- and, for that matter, around the world. It is "merely" a matter of collecting the relevant information and distilling it into succinct, yet complete, statements of the relevant information needed for proper typographic practice for each script, for each style of each script, for each local typographic tradition for each style, and so on. And once you start down that road -- as John Hudson pointed out -- you would quickly find that the problem is not one of "enumerating the list of required ligatures", but is rather more complicated than that -- and that the term "ligature" is not even the pertinent typographic construct of most interest to Indian rendering. > If the Unicode Consortium really does not wish to include this important > project within its scope, It does not. > then it will need to be achieved in some other > manner. Just so. --Ken
