On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Kenichi Handa
<address@hidden> wrote:
There's no problem to change to those keys, but do you
really mean two single-quotes for udatta?
Yes.
Why not single
single-quote?
Because one might want to write तस्य नाम 'केनीचि' इति। more frequently than wanting to type the svarita symbol. And, it is easier to type the same key twice than having to type two different keys.
And, is those keys compatible with some other
input methods?
I don't think other input methods have cared very much about vedic svara-s.
Here is an example of a file intended to be
converted to devanAgarI offline with svara-s. Anudatta-s are automatically inferred from the positioning of svarita-s (indicated by \`). dIrgha-svarita-s are marked by \".
Looking at it, I get a better idea: ` should be mapped to the svarita/ udAtta symbol. `` Could be mapped to dIrgha-svarita.
The (sometimes competing) objectives are : a] mapping is intuitive b] user does not need to press more keys (in terms of number or variety) than he has to.
> Separate request (refined from one mentioned earlier):
> अ] Single '.' followed by a character not in [०-९] (The most important case
> being whitespaces) should be rendered as । . (Just typing one dot rather
> than two is much more convenient, as in English. We would retain .. to ।
> rule for the case where the user needs to insert a daNDa in a position
> before a non-whitespace character.)
Currently, for instance, when ".D" is typed, the preedit area
changes like this:
key preedit
. .
D ड़्
Should we change that to this?
key preedit
. ।
D ड़्
Doesn't it make users feel strange (i.e. । changes to ड़्)?
Yes - that should be avoided - that is why . should not be mapped to ।.
". " (dot followed by space or newline) should be converted to ।, just as . followed by D is converted to ड़्.
> b] ... should be mapped to … (ellipsis) <--- Low priority.
If we are going to support such generic symbols, isn't it
better to have a single escaping key, for instance "/", and
consistently use it as a prefix to input various symbols.
"//" -> "/"
"/." -> "•"
"/.." -> "‥"
"/..." -> "…"
"/0" -> "0"
...
Agreed - that sounds like a better general idea. I suggested ... to ellipse because that is what users intend when they type three dots...