SMC/AtomicChilluIsUnacceptable - Revision history

Missing actor at 10:36, 29 January 2008

2008-01-29T10:36:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 29 January 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:

	http://www.smc.org.in		http://www.smc.org.in


			'''Version submitted to UTC''' : http://images.wikia.com/fci/images/2/23/SMC_Unicode_5.1.pdf

Missing actor at 04:43, 29 January 2008

2008-01-29T04:43:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 29 January 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.		Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.

	3. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given ~~in 1)~~ can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.		3. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given above can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.

	4. Introducing atomic chillus will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy. This has already been illustrated with the following examples .		4. Introducing atomic chillus will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy. This has already been illustrated with the following examples .
Line 23:		Line 23:
	5. Since the joiners has to be supported for backward compatibility it creates unnecessary complexity to all text processing application (sorting, searching) and it makes atomic chillus redundant and useless.		5. Since the joiners has to be supported for backward compatibility it creates unnecessary complexity to all text processing application (sorting, searching) and it makes atomic chillus redundant and useless.

	6. As per the [http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html ~~uncode~~ stability policy], session 'Named Character Sequence Stability', the existing chillu sequence has to be supported. In that case, inorder to process the text with atomic chillu and exiting chillu, there should be a canonical equivalence to old sequence. It is not provided and not mentioned in Unicode 5.1 and that breaks the existing applications and data and violates unicode stability policy.		6. As per the [http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html unicode stability policy], session 'Named Character Sequence Stability', the existing chillu sequence has to be supported. In that case, inorder to process the text with atomic chillu and exiting chillu, there should be a canonical equivalence to old sequence. It is not provided and not mentioned in Unicode 5.1 and that breaks the existing applications and data and violates unicode stability policy.

	7. Even after atomic chillus are made part of the standard many words cannot be written without joiners and it would be increasing the chaos. Thereby the atomic chillu doesnot solve the issue of ignorability of ZWJ or ZWNJ as mentioned in the proposal to encode chillu and atomic chillu is a partial incomplete solution.		7. Even after atomic chillus are made part of the standard many words cannot be written without joiners and it would be increasing the chaos. Thereby the atomic chillu doesnot solve the issue of ignorability of ZWJ or ZWNJ as mentioned in the proposal to encode chillu and atomic chillu is a partial incomplete solution.

202.144.18.81 at 11:04, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T11:04:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 28 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===New Malayalam code points in ~~Uncode~~ 5.1===		===New Malayalam code points in Unicode 5.1===

	Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for Chillu characters.		Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for Chillu characters.

Missing actor at 10:59, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T10:59:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 28 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[Working Draft]~~		===New Malayalam code points in Uncode 5.1===

	Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for Chillu characters.		Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for Chillu characters.
Line 30:		Line 30:
	8. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)		8. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)

	9. ~~Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@~~unicode.org ~~mailing list and still the problem is controversial~~. ~~Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the language technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts~~. ~~We doubt that language experts~~/~~authorities accepted by~~ the ~~public were given an explanation of what Unicode is and what the atomic~~ chillu ~~proposal is about. Only some ivory~~-~~tower discussions among some academicians were carried out and even those has reached the conclusions that there~~ is no particular necessity for atomic chillus. Even among the IT literate Malayalees (people who use Malayalam on a regular basis) only a handful know the Unicode representation of Malayalam and issues surrounding it .We would like to start a process which explains the pros and cons to the language experts and getting their opinion in this matter. So ~~any hurry on adding new code points will~~ , in ~~our opinion~~ , ~~be ill-informed and will have~~ a ~~bad impact on the future of the language .~~		9.In Table 1 of http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions the chillu-n sequence is <na, virama, zwj>. So for consistancy, in Table 2 whenever chillu sequences occur, a zwj insertion showing chillu = <cons, virama, zwj> is essential

	10. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.		10. Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@unicode.org mailing list and still the problem is controversial. Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the language technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts. We doubt that language experts/authorities accepted by the public were given an explanation of what Unicode is and what the atomic chillu proposal is about. Only some ivory-tower discussions among some academicians were carried out and even those has reached the conclusions that there is no particular necessity for atomic chillus. Even among the IT literate Malayalees (people who use Malayalam on a regular basis) only a handful know the Unicode representation of Malayalam and issues surrounding it .We would like to start a process which explains the pros and cons to the language experts and getting their opinion in this matter. So any hurry on adding new code points will , in our opinion , be ill-informed and will have a bad impact on the future of the language .

			11. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.

	Malayalam has already gone through a round of mutilation during the typewriter reform era. We know that the means provided by current computing platforms can resurrect the language and its script and restore its former beauty . If such hurried and ill informed moves are taken instead of careful and well thought out ones , we will be murdering the language instead of resurrecting it.		Malayalam has already gone through a round of mutilation during the typewriter reform era. We know that the means provided by current computing platforms can resurrect the language and its script and restore its former beauty . If such hurried and ill informed moves are taken instead of careful and well thought out ones , we will be murdering the language instead of resurrecting it.

Missing actor at 09:00, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T09:00:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 28 January 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:

	a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) -- contrived examples not found in dictionary		a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) -- contrived examples not found in dictionary

	~~b) ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ കൊടുക്കുന്നു (that man is giving)~~
	~~ആ മനുഷ്യനു് കൊടുക്കുന്നു (giving to the man)~~

	~~as per malayalam lingustic rules the sentence is a mistake.~~
	~~it will be completed if and only if you need to write it as following.~~

	~~Structure:~~

	~~ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ <to whom & what he gives> കൊടുക്കുന്നു~~
	~~ആ മനുഷ്യനു് <who is giving & what is being given> കൊടുക്കുന്നു.~~

	~~Example:~~

	~~ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ (man) പൂച്ചക്ക് (to cat) പാല്‍(milk) കൊടുക്കുന്നു (That man is giving~~
	~~milk to cat )~~
	~~ആ മനുഷ്യനു് (to man) പൂച്ച (cat) പാല്‍ (milk) കൊടുക്കുന്നു. (That cat is giving milk~~
	~~to man) :-)~~

	Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.		Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.

202.144.18.81 at 07:36, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T07:36:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 28 January 2008
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Malayalam has already gone through a round of mutilation during the typewriter reform era. We know that the means provided by current computing platforms can resurrect the language and its script and restore its former beauty . If such hurried and ill informed moves are taken instead of careful and well thought out ones , we will be murdering the language instead of resurrecting it.		Malayalam has already gone through a round of mutilation during the typewriter reform era. We know that the means provided by current computing platforms can resurrect the language and its script and restore its former beauty . If such hurried and ill informed moves are taken instead of careful and well thought out ones , we will be murdering the language instead of resurrecting it.

	We strongly oppose ~~including~~ these characters in the standard as it not only ~~fail~~ to solve all the problems with joiner it creates ~~lots of~~ new problems and the need for providing backward compatibility ~~will produce~~ more chaos ~~in encoding chillus~~.		We strongly oppose the inclusion of these characters for encoding chillus in the Unicode standard as it not only fails to solve all the problems with joiner , but it also creates new problems and introduces the need for providing backward compatibility leading to more chaos.

	Swathanthara Malayalam Computing		Swathanthara Malayalam Computing

	http://www.smc.org.in		http://www.smc.org.in

202.144.18.81 at 07:30, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T07:30:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 28 January 2008
Line 32:		Line 32:
	3. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.		3. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.

	4. ~~This~~ will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy.		4. Introducing atomic chillus will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy. This has already been illustrated with the following examples .

	http://റാല്‍മിനോവ്.blogspot.com (using chillu joiner sequence)		http://റാല്‍മിനോവ്.blogspot.com (using chillu joiner sequence)
Line 48:		Line 48:
	8. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)		8. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)

	9. Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@unicode.org mailing list and still the problem is controversial. Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the ~~langauge~~ technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts. We would like to start a process ~~there by explaining~~ the pros and cons to the language experts and getting ~~the~~ opinion in this matter. So any hurry on adding new code points will have bad ~~impacts~~.		9. Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@unicode.org mailing list and still the problem is controversial. Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the language technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts. We doubt that language experts/authorities accepted by the public were given an explanation of what Unicode is and what the atomic chillu proposal is about. Only some ivory-tower discussions among some academicians were carried out and even those has reached the conclusions that there is no particular necessity for atomic chillus. Even among the IT literate Malayalees (people who use Malayalam on a regular basis) only a handful know the Unicode representation of Malayalam and issues surrounding it .We would like to start a process which explains the pros and cons to the language experts and getting their opinion in this matter. So any hurry on adding new code points will , in our opinion , be ill-informed and will have a bad impact on the future of the language .

	10. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.		10. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.

	We strongly oppose including ~~this~~ characters in the standard as it not only fail to solve all the problems with joiner it creates lots of new problems and the need for providing backward compatibility will produce more chaos in encoding chillus.		Malayalam has already gone through a round of mutilation during the typewriter reform era. We know that the means provided by current computing platforms can resurrect the language and its script and restore its former beauty . If such hurried and ill informed moves are taken instead of careful and well thought out ones , we will be murdering the language instead of resurrecting it.

			We strongly oppose including these characters in the standard as it not only fail to solve all the problems with joiner it creates lots of new problems and the need for providing backward compatibility will produce more chaos in encoding chillus.

	Swathanthara Malayalam Computing		Swathanthara Malayalam Computing

	http://www.smc.org.in		http://www.smc.org.in

Missing actor: number the first point

2008-01-28T06:58:56Z

number the first point

Missing actor: typo fixes

2008-01-28T06:45:33Z

typo fixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 28 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[Working Draft]		[Working Draft]

	Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for ~~CHILLU~~ characters.		Draft version of [http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/#Significant_Character_Additions Unicode 5.1.0] suggests new code points for Chillu characters.
	We, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, a developer community working on localization, development and standardization of Malayalam Computing softwares has the following comments on the draft version of Unicode 5.1.0 .		We, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, a developer community working on localization, development and standardization of Malayalam Computing softwares has the following comments on the draft version of Unicode 5.1.0 .

	The ~~Atomic~~ chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.		The atomic chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.

	1. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by ~~zwj~~ are non-existent in dictionary , not in are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.		1. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by ZWJ are non-existent in dictionary , not in are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.

	a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) ... contrived examples not found in dictionary		a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) ... contrived examples not found in dictionary

202.144.18.81 at 06:37, 28 January 2008

2008-01-28T06:37:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 28 January 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	The Atomic chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.		The Atomic chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.

	1. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by zwj are non-existent in dictionary or are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.		1. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by zwj are non-existent in dictionary , not in are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.

	a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) ... contrived examples not found in dictionary		a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) ... contrived examples not found in dictionary
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Structure:		Structure:

	ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ <to whom & what he is gives> കൊടുക്കുന്നു		ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ <to whom & what he gives> കൊടുക്കുന്നു
	ആ മനുഷ്യനു് <who is giving & what is ~~giving~~> കൊടുക്കുന്നു.		ആ മനുഷ്യനു് <who is giving & what is being given> കൊടുക്കുന്നു.

	Example:		Example:
Line 28:		Line 28:
	to man) :-)		to man) :-)

	~~Fundamental~~ problem lies ~~here~~ in ~~the unicode~~'s way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the ~~indic~~ languages are unlike ~~latin~~ and collations are based on ~~linguistic base~~. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests		Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.

	2. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.		2. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 28 January 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	We, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, a developer community working on localization, development and standardization of Malayalam Computing softwares has the following comments on the draft version of Unicode 5.1.0 .		We, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, a developer community working on localization, development and standardization of Malayalam Computing softwares has the following comments on the draft version of Unicode 5.1.0 .

	The atomic chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.		1. The atomic chillu's are unacceptable because it destroys the link of a chillu with its base character.

	1. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by ZWJ are non-existent in dictionary , not in are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.		2. The examples used to justify semantic difference between words only separated by ZWJ are non-existent in dictionary , not in are grammatically wrong or meaningless without proper context.

	a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) ~~...~~ contrived examples not found in dictionary		a) വന്‍യവനിക/വന്യവനിക (vanYavanika/vanyavanika), കണ്‍വലയം/കണ്വലയം (kanvalayam/kanualayam) -- contrived examples not found in dictionary
	~~b) ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ കൊടുക്കുന്നു (that man is giving)~~

			b) ആ മനുഷ്യന്‍ കൊടുക്കുന്നു (that man is giving)
	ആ മനുഷ്യനു് കൊടുക്കുന്നു (giving to the man)		ആ മനുഷ്യനു് കൊടുക്കുന്നു (giving to the man)

Line 30:		Line 30:
	Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.		Here , the fundamental problem lies in Unicode's way of treating only representational forms without checking linguistic correctness. Most of the Indic languages are unlike Latin and collations are based on linguistics. If you are not considering it, it will become a play yard of people with vested interests.

	2. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.		3. All these arguments were once considered and rejected by UTC and the only new argument in support of atomic chillus is the issue of missing domain names in IDN. The examples given in 1) can't be considered real as these are contrived just to make a case for atomic chillus. Even if were real it is similar to case folding in Latin (You can't register two sites PenIsland.com and PenisLand.com). How can already rejected proposal be accepted when the new arguments in supports is not only proved to be real, but creates a lot of new chaos and security problems.

	3. This will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy.		4. This will create dual encoding and makes URL spoofing very easy.

	http://റാല്‍മിനോവ്.blogspot.com (using chillu joiner sequence)		http://റാല്‍മിനോവ്.blogspot.com (using chillu joiner sequence)
Line 39:		Line 39:
	because both of these have different punicode. The existing chillu encoding with joiners is best solution because all of the combinations of joiners and non-joiners give exactly same punicode.		because both of these have different punicode. The existing chillu encoding with joiners is best solution because all of the combinations of joiners and non-joiners give exactly same punicode.

	4. Since the joiners has to be supported for backward compatibility it creates unnecessary complexity to all text processing application (sorting, searching) and it makes atomic chillus redundant and useless.		5. Since the joiners has to be supported for backward compatibility it creates unnecessary complexity to all text processing application (sorting, searching) and it makes atomic chillus redundant and useless.

	5. As per the [http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html uncode stability policy], session 'Named Character Sequence Stability', the existing chillu sequence has to be supported. In that case, inorder to process the text with atomic chillu and exiting chillu, there should be a canonical equivalence to old sequence. It is not provided and not mentioned in Unicode 5.1 and that breaks the existing applications and data and violates unicode stability policy.		6. As per the [http://unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html uncode stability policy], session 'Named Character Sequence Stability', the existing chillu sequence has to be supported. In that case, inorder to process the text with atomic chillu and exiting chillu, there should be a canonical equivalence to old sequence. It is not provided and not mentioned in Unicode 5.1 and that breaks the existing applications and data and violates unicode stability policy.

	6. Even after atomic chillus are made part of the standard many words cannot be written without joiners and it would be increasing the chaos. Thereby the atomic chillu doesnot solve the issue of ignorability of ZWJ or ZWNJ as mentioned in the proposal to encode chillu and atomic chillu is a partial incomplete solution.		7. Even after atomic chillus are made part of the standard many words cannot be written without joiners and it would be increasing the chaos. Thereby the atomic chillu doesnot solve the issue of ignorability of ZWJ or ZWNJ as mentioned in the proposal to encode chillu and atomic chillu is a partial incomplete solution.
	Eg: കൊയ്‌രാള (koirala), സദ്‌വാരം (sadvaram)		Eg: കൊയ്‌രാള (koirala), സദ്‌വാരം (sadvaram)

	7. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)		8. Using virama with chillus is linguistically incorrect (function of virama is to create vowel-less and you can't use it with a chillu or pure consonant because these are already vowel-less forms of the underlying consonants)

	8. Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@unicode.org mailing list and still the problem is controversial. Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the langauge technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts. We would like to start a process there by explaining the pros and cons to the language experts and getting the opinion in this matter. So any hurry on adding new code points will have bad impacts.		9. Everybody knows that there was no consensus reached in the discussion in indic@unicode.org mailing list and still the problem is controversial. Another thing is even though the new changes will have a major impact on the langauge technology, the linguistics and language experts in Malayalam is not at all aware of the facts. We would like to start a process there by explaining the pros and cons to the language experts and getting the opinion in this matter. So any hurry on adding new code points will have bad impacts.

	9. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.		10. The document http://www.rachanamalayalam.org/docs/ChilluEncodingIsWrong.pdf already questioned the new code points and there was no satisfactory reply from the people who proposed atomic chillu.

	We strongly oppose including this characters in the standard as it not only fail to solve all the problems with joiner it creates lots of new problems and the need for providing backward compatibility will produce more chaos in encoding chillus.		We strongly oppose including this characters in the standard as it not only fail to solve all the problems with joiner it creates lots of new problems and the need for providing backward compatibility will produce more chaos in encoding chillus.