Re: Fixing Two Unicode Asymmetries in case conversion

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Mon Nov 16 1998 - 13:48:40 EST

Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Yet Another I-Dotting Proposal"
Previous message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "UTR #12"
Maybe in reply to: Rick McGowan: "Re: Fixing Two Unicode Asymmetries in case conversion"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Not at all. Of course IPA is Latin -- it simply doesn't make _use_ of case
> distinctions, which is a matter of practicality to ensure simplicity and
> legibility of transcriptions.

I can't agree. IPA is shape-sensitive in a way that Latin is not:
the letterforms are (in principle) fixed, a bit like the Zapf
Dingbats block. Unicode kludges around this, but doesn't really
satisfy it. Xerox Character Code, OTOH, had a completely separate
IPA block, caseless and with fixed glyphs.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Yet Another I-Dotting Proposal"
Previous message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "UTR #12"
Maybe in reply to: Rick McGowan: "Re: Fixing Two Unicode Asymmetries in case conversion"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:43 EDT