Re: Refining the idea for the SignWriting proposal

From: Stephen Slevinski (slevinski@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 07:28:13 CDT

  • Next message: John Dlugosz: "RE: Using Javascript to Detect Script Support in a Browser"

    Most BaseSymbols show fill1 and rotation 1. Handshapes are the
    exception. There are 261 different handshapes broken into 10 groups.
    The first handshape in each group uses fill 1 and rotation 1. The rest
    of the handshapes use fill 2. This is a standard that has been used
    since the beginning of the writing system.

    You can see the 10 SymbolGroups for handshapes use fill 1.
    http://signbank.org/iswa/cat_1.html

    If you click on any Symbol Group, you can see the BaseSymbols underneath
    use fill 2.

    Regards,
    -Steve

    André Szabolcs Szelp wrote:
    > 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 <mailto: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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 07:33:17 CDT