Re: canIPA worth being encoded?

From: Karl Pentzlin (karl-pentzlin@acssoft.de)
Date: Thu Mar 25 2010 - 16:14:54 CST

  • Next message: Charlie Ruland ☘: "Fwd: Re: canIPA worth being encoded?"

    Am Donnerstag, 25. März 2010 um 22:43 schrieb Doug Ewell:

    DE> If canIPA really requires 3,655 private-use characters, it would
    DE> probably have to be examined extra, EXTRA carefully by the relevant
    DE> committees before anyone gets their hopes up about it being formally
    DE> encoded.

    I have not seen that font yet, but I would not be surprised if most of
    those characters in fact are precomposed ones, which do not need to be
    encoded in Unicode at all.
    If you look at other fonts developed and used by linguists, you usually
    find the PUA full of such precomposed characters.

    As long as Microsoft et al. do not do their homework, by providing their
    standard software being able to handle all combining characters
    and OpenType features correctly in all possible circumstances without
    problems, such fonts and "PUA pseudostandards" will continue to be
    needed, developed, and used.

    See e.g.:
    http://www.mufi.info/specs/MUFI-CodeChart-3-0.pdf
    http://www.mif.vu.lt/~vladas/PalemonasCodeCharts.pdf
    http://www.wboe.at/Resources/dinamlex/dinamlex-codechart_2007-06-28c.pdf

    - Karl Pentzlin

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 25 2010 - 16:18:35 CST