How you'd tell the client: at its simplest crux, the problem you'll have is that InDesign doesn't (possibly) support Punjabi or Tamil.
This would suck _a lot_ for typesetting / formatting etc, but that's the best you can do here.
#GURMUKHI FONT KEYBOARD MAP PDF#
The solution, in which case, would be to take a screen-capture in Word or PDF and then use that as an image in InDesign.
#GURMUKHI FONT KEYBOARD MAP MAC#
Seems like InDesign (whether on Mac or Windows) doesn't officially support Indic character rendering it's quite possible that you may have problems despite the aforementioned conversion. Problem here being, that won't be enough for you. Zengargoyle's first link converts Bamini to Unicode, but the presupposition here is that you have a Unicode-friendly OS / font already installed at best, it can help you convert Bamini to perhaps InaiMathi. It's possible that the font uses encoding reserved for ASCII characters to render Tamil characters. First, a quick googling tells me that Bamini doesn't use Unicode at all (here's the right InScript keyboard layout, considerably different from the earlier link) like many Indian fonts, the creator used her own non-generic standard to come up with the keyboard layout. While it's possible to have a font that's both OpenType and AAT-compatible, but it's possible that some AAT fonts aren't compatible with OpenType. If you're on a Mac, you should know that Apple doesn't use OpenType at all it uses AAT instead. Windows has a rendering engine called Uniscribe that does this right (as you can see in the page though, not all versions support all languages support has been progressive and could involve Service Packs etc, rather than being out-of-the-box) The closest we have to a standard on this is OpenType it's supported fully by both Windows and Linux. Having a standard for all glyphs is crucial in two respects:- first, your fonts will be dependent on that, and second, it's crucial that your OS be able to render the glyphs correctly. What this means is this: while Unicode has a standard for all the 48+16 letters in Brahmi-based scripts (all of which will roughly have the same set, save a letter here or there), it doesn't have a standard for all the (48+16 * 48+16) combinations. Tar., which would roughly be ਮੇਟਾਭਿਲ੍ਟਰ if I get my Gurmukhi correctly. So metafilter wouldn't necessarily be a letter-for-letter transliteration of m.e.t.a.f.i.l.t.e.r in Gurmukhi, like it would be for European scripts like Cyrillic or Greek it would be me. If you're dealing with Indic characters, just let it be known that Unicode is an encoding for _letters_, (अ, आ, क etc in Devnaagri), but not _glyphs_ (का, की etc) Indic languages effectively deal with glyphs, "conjunct consonants" ("aadha akshar" in Hindi) that are formed by combining consonants and vowels and so on. Best answer: Here's the long-form answer: