<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Georgia">Hello Dr. Bal and our Nepal team,</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">Thanks for putting together the document for
Nepali and Newar languages for Devanagari script.</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">Following are my observations:</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">1. Code point repertoire for the Devanagari
Nepali and Newar languages<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - As I see, the currently shared
Devanagari LGR takes into account all the characters required by
Nepali and Newar. Please let me know if there is some discrepancy
related to the same. Also, it would be great if you could cite
some additional references in the last column "References" which
depict use of the individual characters in everyday use. They
could be different references for different characters. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - Also, as required, the 0931 (Ra Nukta)
has been contextually permitted to form eyelash reph only. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">2. Composite characters – Confusingly
similar shapes</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - The similar looking cases which are
mere confusions on part of the user may not form part of the
Devanagari variants. As per the LGR procedure, these cases are
subject to "String Similarity Assessment" panel. As discussed in
the Kathmandu meeting, I can definitely put them in Appendix
with a reference for the string similarity panel to take them
into account as an official recommendation from the NBGP. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> Having said the above, I myself have
contradicted to the above by including some of the "confusingly
similar" cases as a part of variant recommendations for LGR.
These are the cases pertaining to Santhali combinations where
Nukta is expected to come with certain Vowels and Vowel signs.
These are Unique cases because the "non-Santhali user-base of
Devanagari" </font><font face="Georgia"><font face="Georgia">(which
is major part of it)</font> may not at all imagine presence of
Nukta at those locations. Such instances may thus be construed
by them as Stylistic variants/rendering problems thereby not
making them sound an alarm. The point being, these are not mere
visual similarity cases as they involve a congnitive lapse. This
makes them worth being explicitly cited as variant.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - Regarding similarity based on fonts:</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> I would request to refer to our
discussion as per mail on 28th July '17 on the topic. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - Regarding similarity between र + ् +
इ and ई:</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> This is already being barred by our
context rules which are based on earlier work done by C-DAC for
.bharat domain names.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">3. Homophonic variants<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - As rightly pointed out in your
document, these rules may not uniformly apply across the board
to all the languages using Devanagari. Most of the suggestions
under this section fall under the spelling norms which is not
what we are aiming through LGR creation. An example for the same
in English is e.g. No three consonants can come together to form
a meaningful word, however fli<b>ckr</b> is still a domain name
widely accepted and used by the Internet Community. In the same
spirit, we will restrict ourselves from going in the "spelling
norms". Also, not all spelling norms are algorithmically
predictable and vary a great deal across the community. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> As far as variant aspect of such words
is concerned, there are two things about it. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - As per classical approach of domain
name system, such cases are not treated as variants as their
appearance is completely different. e.g. color vs colour.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> - Also, even though it may appear that
such cases can be algorithmically predicted going by the varga
classification in Brahmi, </font><font face="Georgia"><font
face="Georgia">across linguistic communities, these cases
differ. </font>The varga classification and it's last nasal
consonant is perfect system in itself for predicting
nasalization and conjuct behaviors in words, however it is not
how it has come down into popular usage across the communities.
The point being, it cannot be algorithmically predicted which is
basic requirement under the LGR procedure. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> Regarding Halant ending words:</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"> This we can accommodate as the ending
halant in many cases is not clearly visible. Just like Santhali
variant cases, these can be missed by users by not expecting
them to be. Request all for a feedback on the same.</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">These are my views. Please feel free to discuss
further on these points.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">Regards,</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia">Akshat Joshi</font></p>
<p><font face="Georgia"></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03-08-2017 12:06, Bal Krishna Bal
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALR5485YexQfYDxNUULt7Ja47j0E_GptQ-Fd_jgBFHmOTJOpyQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hello Akshat and All,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Please find attached the inputs from
the Devanagari Nepali and Newar Languages for the Devanagari
LGR Report.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Regards,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Bal Krishna</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Regards,
Akshat Joshi
C-DAC GIST</pre>
<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
<br />Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
<br />
<br />This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
<br />contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
<br />intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
<br />all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
<br />disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
<br />is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</body>
</html>