>The convention among those working with it is to use diacritics,
>so I opted for that in the visible name of the script, but for the
>(or rather, a) form without diacritics in file names and code.
> If this is a more correct way, should the others be changed as
> well?
>That is not up to me to decide, but I would not be opposed to
>“Brāhmī” for parallelism.
> Also I noticed that Kharoṣṭhī and Gāndhārī are written in IAST
> but not Saṃskṛta.
>The difference here is that “Sanskrit” is much more part of the
>English language (in dictionaries etc.) than “Kharoṣṭhī” and
>“Brāhmī.”
The issue I had was this naming scheme was inconsistent with the previous ones, but of course it is your patch you can do as you prefer, I have no strong inclinations either way.
> since now there is also a misc-lang.el in lisp/leim/quail/ I
> think the Kharoshthi input method should be moved there.
>I had a look. That file is billed as
>Quail package for inputting Miscellaneous characters
>which is a bit of misnomer, as it only contains input rules for
>the Hanifi Rohingya script. Why did you not give that script its
>own input file, as has been the practice so far?
This is because lisp/leim/quail/misc-lang.el is a recently created file, I have plans to include more input methods there, such as, Avestan, Gothic, Shavian, Desert, Imperial Aramaic etc.
>Also because the Kharoṣṭhī rules are quite numerous, I would
>prefer for them to stay in their own file.
I understand.
Thanks.