On 25/09/2004 20:53, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
If we are considering a scenario in which someone takes shorthand
notes at a meeting and transcribes them later, interchange between
computers is likely to be required. If this process is to be
automated, a sensible way to do so would be
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Having a character encoding for shorthand kind of defeats the purpose of
performing paleographic analysis on handwritten shorthand, because in
order to encode, say, a Pitman or Gregg "d"' you must have already
identified it as a "d". An encoding that describe
I think encoding shorthands is a worthwhile thing, but there are
other things on the roadmap which take priority.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Peter Kirk wrote:
> If we are considering a scenario in which someone takes shorthand
> notes at a meeting and transcribes them later, interchange between
> computers is likely to be required. If this process is to be
> automated, a sensible way to do so would be for the minute-taker to
> write s
On 25/09/2004 18:50, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Philippe makes an excellent case for the continued use and teaching of
shorthand, but none of his arguments really demonstrates why shorthand
should be encoded in a standard character encoding such as Unicode.
There is no question that major corporations a
computer system to another. That appears to be one factor
that determines whether encoding is justified or not.
As for the renewed interest in teaching shorthand, either on-line or in
person, I don't see where a Unicode encoding of shorthand would provide
much of an advantage over contin
At 19:49 +0100 2004-09-21, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Some abbreviations (about twenty?) did have more common use and there are
many 19th century UK books published in "record type" which reproduce
ancient records. Many of the abbreviations don't have a unique expansion so
converting into expanded pl
Gerd Schumacher said:
> The Tironian notes, comprising many thousand characters, are the only
> exeption, I know. The Tironian et (U+204A) is still in use today. Few other
> ones of them, which survived in medieval Latin paleography, and even in
> early printing, in my opinion, should be encoded.
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 18:50 -0400 2004-09-20, Ernest Cline wrote:
From a logical point of view, wouldn't shorthands fit better in the
Notational systems (1D000..1FFFD ) superblock than in the African and
other syllabic scripts ( 11800..11FFF) superblock ?
Please understan
At 18:50 -0400 2004-09-20, Ernest Cline wrote:
From a logical point of view, wouldn't shorthands fit better in the
Notational systems (1D000..1FFFD ) superblock than in the African
and other syllabic scripts ( 11800..11FFF) superblock ?
Please understand: it doesn't matter.
--
Michael Everson * *
Incidentally, for those interested, the website of the National
Court Reporters Association has a brief history of
shorthand (skewed of course to the English language-based
developments):
http://www.ncraonline.org/about/history/shorthand.shtml
A summary of the development of the Stenograph machin
>> There is no specific allocation
> > for Gregg or Pitman or any other particular system, but
> > 11E00..11FFF is currently blocked out for shorthands, simply
> > as a placeholder to indicate that we know such systems
> > exist and that somebody might bring forth a proposal and
> > that if success
At 13:39 -0700 2004-09-20, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Michael Everson responded to Christopher Fynn's question:
At 13:46 +0100 2004-09-19, Christopher Fynn wrote:
>
> >So, am I right in assuming that were someone put together a decent
> >proposal for one or more shorthand scripts, there is no part
> [Original Message]
> From: Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For whoever said that shorthands weren't roadmapped, that
> isn't completely correct. There is no specific allocation
> for Gregg or Pitman or any other particular system, but
> 11E00..11FFF is currently blocked out for shorth
Michael Everson responded to Christopher Fynn's question:
> At 13:46 +0100 2004-09-19, Christopher Fynn wrote:
>
> >So, am I right in assuming that were someone put together a decent
> >proposal for one or more shorthand scripts, there is no particular
> >reason in principle why it would be rej
Christopher Fynn writes:
> One trouble is that OpenType shaping engines apply shaping features in a
> script specific manner.
Then OpenType is broken in this respect. Unicode constantly tells people
that they will have to use better technology instead of Unicode adding
something.
> If someone w
From: "Christopher Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Not really, because the actual rendering is bidimensionnal, not linear.
It's difficult to predict the line height, as the baseline changes
according to the context of previous characters in the word, and its
writing direction (fo
At 13:46 +0100 2004-09-19, Christopher Fynn wrote:
So, am I right in assuming that were someone put together a decent
proposal for one or more shorthand scripts, there is no particular
reason in principle why it would be rejected?
You are right.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http
D. Starner wrote:
> Do stenotype machines produce shorthand symbols? What I've seen to
> TV seem to produce Latin letters, and the keyboard image found through
> Google had Latin letter on it.
> In any case, that's possibly a valid case but it would be nice if the
> people who had such data were ac
James Kass wrote:
As stated, though, the PUA appears to be the only place for shorthand
presently. Shorthands don't seem to be on the Roadmaps, so maybe
no proposals exist?
Unfortunately, in OpenType at least, complex shaping is not applied to
PUA characters.
There still seem to be many places t
D. Starner responded to C. Fynn,
> > Shorthand symbols are of course printed in books on shorthand :-)
>
> But as images, not text. There's likely to be arrows, showing the
> directions, and any changes to glyph form are likely to be errors.
"The Sign of the Four" by Doyle was published in
> > Sounds a bit like Arabic...
>
> Not really, because the actual rendering is bidimensionnal, not
> linear. It's difficult to predict the line height, as the baseline
> changes according to the context of previous characters in the word,
> and its writing direction (forward or backward).
Then i
Shorthand writing systems usually are not used for information interchange.
Thus there seems to be no reason for encoding them.
The Tironian notes, comprising many thousand characters, are the only
exeption, I know. The Tironian et (U+204A) is still in use today. Few other
ones of them, which surv
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shorthand symbols are of course printed in books on shorthand :-)
But as images, not text. There's likely to be arrows, showing the
directions, and any changes to glyph form are likely to be errors.
> Stenotype and similar machines also produce short
From: "Christopher Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philippe Verdy wrote:
<<
It's not impossible to create a rendering system for such stenographic
system, however the general layout is more complex than with traditional
alphabets, because the layout of characters is highly dependant of the
context of
> [Original Message]
> From: Chris Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Christopher Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
> > symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically
excluded?
Philippe Verdy wrote:
<<
It's not impossible to create a rendering system for such stenographic
system, however the general layout is more complex than with traditional
alphabets, because the layout of characters is highly dependant of the
context of previous letters, and the system includes gly
D. Starner wrote:
Christopher Fynn wrote:
Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically excluded?
They're a form of handwriting, which is generally excluded. Why do
they need to be encoded in a computer? Gener
From: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Fynn wrote:
Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically excluded?
They're a form of handwriting, which is generally excluded. Why do
they need to be encoded in
From: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 12:08 AM
Subject: Unicode & Shorthand?
Is there any plan to include sets of
Christopher Fynn wrote:
> Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
> symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically excluded?
They're a form of handwriting, which is generally excluded. Why do
they need to be encoded in a computer? General practice, at
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Fynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 12:08 AM
Subject: Unicode & Shorthand?
> Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
> symbols in Unicode
Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically excluded?
- Chris
33 matches
Mail list logo
