From: André Szabolcs Szelp (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 04:25:57 CDT
why does the base character in the second example have a different "default"
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.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Stephen Slevinski <email@example.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:
> 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
> Would such a proposal be close enough to the Unicode standard?
> Thanks for your time,
-- Szelp, André Szabolcs +43 (650) 79 22 400
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 04:33:34 CDT