[Tugindia] Comparison of input methods

Raj Singh raj at ceeri.ernet.in
Tue Apr 22 17:24:30 CEST 2003


> 3) I suppose when you talk of ILeap you are talking about the phonetic
> English keyboard (they recommend inscript). I suppose one question to be
> asked is can the other input methods handle the range of ligatures that
> devnag handles?  

My limited exposure to such packages showed that placing of matraas (A, I,
i) in the output was not that great. Particularly, iLeap was not good (the
matraas usually were displaced from their "proper" locations).

> 5) I suppose the test is how readable is the english text file to a human
> reader.

I had no trouble writing Hindi (or Sanskrit) using devnag. I could easily 
read and understand the romanised Hindi (English text) -- the mispal.dn 
supplied along with the devnag package can be checked out (it has a few 
minor Hindi spelling mistakes).

Writing Hindi using iLeap by comparison required more effort on my part.  
The iTranslator package from the Omkaranada Ashram, Haridwar, with split
screens -- one for Hindi/Sanskrit output and other for Romanised Hindi
input, is impressive.

My two bits.
-- Raj

| Raj Singh         | EMAIL : raj at ceeri.ernet.in    |
| IC Design Group   |-------------------------------|
| CEERI             | PHONE : 01596-242359 (office) |
| Pilani -- 333 031 | FAX   : 01596-242294 (office) |

More information about the Tugindia mailing list