I apologize in advance for replying in public to Michka's private message, but he asked a good question.
>> What I don't want: >> - Anything that requires me to install Keyman > > How come? (Just curious). I really don't want to install a Big Pre-Packaged Solution and have it do everything for me, Windows-wide. What I'm looking for is a technical spec that I can use to build something from scratch for one application. I'd rather not go through the effort of installing Keyman, especially on the memory- and disk-challenged machine I'm using here at home, just so I can load a single keyboard layout, reverse-engineer it, and uninstall Keyman. That's all I'd really be doing with it, at least for now. I know there are a lot of Keyman devotees on the list, so if I am greatly exaggerating the effort vs. payoff, please let me know in a gentle, flame-free way. Also, if nobody is able to come up with a text description of the type I wanted, I may have to resort to the Keyman approach anyway. James Kass wrote: > Here is an actual layout for IPA UTF-8 entry: > http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk/ipa_kb_det.htm This is weird. Quoting from the page, "Since Unicode UTF-8 encoding codes each IPA symbol as two characters (bytes), you will have to type two keys for each letter." Eventually it is revealed that the two-character sequences the user must type are "based on the SAMPA guidelines for typing IPA using ASCII." No, this one isn't what I want. > This page has graphics showing the Mac-IPA layout: > http://www.matchfonts.com/pages/m-ipa.html I had seen this page before. This is more like what I had in mind, but it requires five keyboard states. I know that full IPA support may require more than 47 * 4 = 182 characters, but I really have to stick to this limit. I could tolerate supporting only the 182 "most common" IPA characters (whatever that means) if necessary. Also, the Mac-IPA layout is presented as a bitmap only, without Unicode code points or even character names. I'm not familiar enough with IPA to be able to distinguish, say, U+0279 from U+027A by looking at smallish bitmaps. But I do appreciate James's effort in looking up these two resources and letting me know about them. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California (address will soon change to dewell at adelphia dot net)
