On 11/21/2002 10:11:41 AM John Cowan wrote:
Case *mapping* is informative, and it's perfectly all right for language
A to claim that the lower-case form of squiggle is squoggle whereas
language C makes it squaggle instead.
No, case mapping is now normative, as indicated in
Dean Snyder asked:
...
What it comes down to is the fact that for historic scripts in
particular, there are no defined criteria that would enable us
to simply *discover* the right answer regarding the identity of
scripts. To a certain extent, the encoding committees need to
make arbitrary
Dean Snyder scripsit:
What are the properties which will trigger separate Unicode encodings for
characters typically or always represented by identically shaped glyphs?
Well, whyn't you say so?
The normative ones, exactly and precisely. Casing is normative, so
if language A claims that
(but what is standard in 4th century terms ?) Latin, Greek and
Runic letters should be dealt with at the font level. Nevertheless, Gothic has
been encoded in Unicode, and this may provide an unwelcome precedent for
encoding other mixed-script writing systems.
What about the now-defunct Zhuang alphabet
in Unicode, and this may provide an unwelcome precedent for
encoding other mixed-script writing systems.
What you are getting at is the complicated problem of sorting out all
the historical connections between various related alphabets and trying
to sift them into categories which make sense
Hmm, one way forward could be to add the 4 letters in question to the
Latin script. There are examples of an analogue to this, namely adding
Latin letters to the Cyrillic script.
Best regards
keld
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:17:57AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the Unicode design
On 2002.11.15, 20:59, Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if so, if a typographical compromise has often occurred it could
have been forgotten in time that it was originally a compromise, and
the substituted symbols might now be thought to be the correct ones.
In that case, they indeed
On 2002.11.15, 21:05, Dean Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if groups A and B have exactly the same lowercase graphemic
inventory, let's say {a, c, m, e}, but exhibit the following disparate
properties:
...
Group A pronounces the graphemic sequence acme as /acme/; group B as
/stoi/.
One of the Unicode design principles is unification: unify across
languages, but not across scripts. As a result, the A used in all
Latin-based writing systems is the same character, but that character is
different from the A used in Cyrillic- or Greek-based writing systems.
There are a very
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across scripts -- to imply that we need
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 11:17 AM on Friday, November 15, 2002:
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across
Peter Constable posted on Wakhi:
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across scripts -- to imply that we
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new characters,
Dean Snyder scripsit:
Group A writes the logically ordered graphemic sequence *acme* as acme;
group B as emca.
This fact requires separate encoding, because bidi-ness is a noncontextual
property of a Unicode character.
Group A pronounces the graphemic sequence acme as /acme/; group B as
On 11/15/2002 02:59:11 PM Jim Allan wrote:
Yet I note the schwa used in the sample does not match the other vowel
letters in style or width, apparently here borrowed from a different font.
Definitely an ecclectic font (and, unfortunately, illegal -- I won't
mention the face name or the owners,
On 11/15/2002 12:22:15 PM John Cowan wrote:
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use
a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across
languages
but not across scripts -- to
16 matches
Mail list logo
