FWIW, if I were you, I'd forget all about CLDR for one thing, there is no evidence that the originators of EPA ever considered title-casing, and I think it would be wrong of us to retro-fit mechanisms which were not part of the original
as Doug Ewell remarked in another thread, character names serve as unique identifiers, few other promises are made that being so, it should be enough to collect all the unique glyphs, ensure they're given Unicode values, and accept that the current mechanism cannot (easily) handle the degree of variety required relationships between upper and lower case characters can then be described in the notes (a little like the situation with Georgian) relationships between upper and lower case glyphs can be handled by OpenType tables not ideal, perhaps, but it may be sufficient for what is, after all, a small community finally, an observation prompted by your last paragraph: I had thought, at one time, that something like Pitman's Initial Teaching Alphabet could be mapped onto the IPA, and OpenType tables could then provide the glyph appropriate to the context, but I'm now convinced it can't be done EPA and Pitman's ITA are phonemic, and do not map one-to-one onto the set of sounds in the IPA regards . . . /phil --- On Thu, 8/7/10, Karl Pentzlin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Karl Pentzlin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Draft Proposal to encode the English Phonotypic Alphabet To: "Mark Davis ☕" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 8 July, 2010, 2:26 AM Am Mittwoch, 30. Juni 2010 um 18:26 schrieb Mark Davis ☕ (re http://www.pentzlin.com/EPA_Proposal_Draft1.pdf ) MD> A couple of very quick comments. >> A special phenomenon of EPA is that the combination of upper and lower >> case letters is peculiar in EPA, and changes between the different EPA >> stages. MD> The committee decided that any further special casing should be MD> handled in CLDR, you'd want a proposal to that group. For that to MD> be done, you'd need first to propose a BCP47 variant to indicate MD> EPA English. This would all be done well after the encoding were accepted. If I understand this correct, this means: - In the proposal itself, I have to list the special casings for having them fully documented, but do not need to mention the Unicode data file "special-casing.txt". - Then, I can sumbit the proposal. - Then, if and after the proposal is accepted by UTC, I have to propose four variants of English for inclusion into the CLDR according to the four states with different case pairing: en EPA_1847 en EPA_1852 en EPA_1860 en EPA_1868 and, especially, only then I have to learn about the CLDR details how to do this and how to include the special case pairing. Is this the correct way? Also, if variants of English are to be included into the CLDR that way, are these four states sufficient, or have the changes of the meanings of some letters (i.e. the mapping to the units which then were recognized as the "sounds" of English) to be regarded (as these mappings affect the accomplishment of correct searching results)?
