Re: Refining the idea for the SignWriting proposal

[Stephen Slevinski]

Most BaseSymbols show fill1 and rotation 1.  Handshapes are the exception.  There are 261 different handshapes broken into 10 groups.  The first handshape in each group uses fill 1 and rotation 1.  The rest of the handshapes use fill 2.  This is a standard that has been used since the beginning of the writing system. You can see the 10 SymbolGroups for handshapes use fill 1. http://signbank.org/iswa/cat_1.html If you click on any Symbol Group, you can see the BaseSymbols underneath use fill 2. Regards, -Steve André Szabolcs Szelp wrote: Stephen, why does the base character in the second example have a different "default" fill? Even if that would happen to be the most common version, I think you should have a consistent base-fill and fill modifiers which does not depend on an implied base fill. /Szabolcs On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Stephen Slevinski <slevin...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi List, Just a few more minutes of your time... I will be dividing my SignWriting proposal into 2 parts.  First, encoding the symbols of the ISWA 2010.  Second, a technical note describing a lightweight SignWriting Cartesian Markup that can be used with the symbols for script layout. My proposal for encoding the symbols will require 674 code points. * 652 for the BaseSymbols * 6 for the fill modifiers * 16 for the rotation modifiers The SignWriting symbol set defines 37,812 valid symbols.  Each of these symbols can be defined with 3 characters: BaseSymbol, fill modifier, and rotation modifier. There are potentially 62,592 character combinations, but not all are valid.  Each BaseSymbol has a list of valid fills and valid rotations. A few examples... BaseSymbol 77 (U+1D852) , can be viewed by itself.  A different glyph is displayed when followed by fill modifier 3 (U+1DA94) and rotation modifier 1 (U+1DA98) . BaseSymbol 136 (U+1D88D) , can be viewed by itself.  A different glyph is displayed when followed by fill modifier 1 (U+1DA92) and rotation modifier 2 (U+1DA99) . All of the symbols are documented in the ISWA 2010 HTML Reference.  This reference will be updated as part of the proposal: http://www.signbank.org/iswa It will be proposed that initially fonts have restrictions for size and shape.  This restriction should be lifted if a scheme can be created that eliminates the requirement of exact symbol placement for proper script layout. Would such a proposal be close enough to the Unicode standard? Thanks for your time, -Steve -- Szelp, André Szabolcs +43 (650) 79 22 400