Re: Refining the idea for the SignWriting proposal

From: André Szabolcs Szelp (a.sz.szelp@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 04:25:57 CDT

  • Next message: Stephen Slevinski: "Re: Refining the idea for the SignWriting proposal"

    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 <slevinski@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

    14c20.png
    14c.png
    187.png
    18701.png

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 04:33:34 CDT