--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Ewell" <dewell@...> wrote:

> Suzanne McCarthy <suzmccarth at yahoo dot com> wrote:
>
> >> Everyone, especially the computer guys, keeps telling you that
> >> script typology has nothing whatsoever to do with input methods.
> >
> > Actually the 'computer guys' kept telling me that the unicode

layer

> > and the editing layer are different. The codepoints and the

input

> > and display are different. Particularly Marco, on June 3, (thank
> > you, and to many others on and off the list) explained that Indic
> > input has "a sort of 'syllabic editing' functionally very

similar to

> > a Chinese input method." So that the abugida model has been used
> > for assigning codepoints and the syllabic model for input method.
>
> Exactly. Which means the typology of the script (Tamil in this

case, an

> abugida) has nothing to do with its input method (syllabic).

It is too painfully obvious to me that the typology of the script
has nothing to do with the input method. Do you think this is
acceptable? I suggested much earlier that there should be a
framework not only for encoders but also for users. Well, the
encoders have a typology, for better or worse, but the users should
have one too.

Right now Tamil is coded to keyboard in order of phonetic sequence
(alphabet?), edits as syllables (syllabic?)(there also exists a
syllable input IME version 1 - not really working yet), and displays
in non-linear sequence (abugida?).

The Tamil have chosen to ignore all this and use code conversion or
transliteration. Tranliteration is a good compromise if there is a
disjunct between code and input. One reason why is because a
representative of Microsoft originally said that Indic scripts did
not require an IME. Obviously some naive person who didn't know
already that input methods are not worthy of scientific
consideration asked for one.

I have been reading the November 2001 posts and can see I am not
alone in questioning the status quo. Was any resolution reached at
that time?

Suzanne