Re: Mandombe

2012/6/10 Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>:
>>> I agree with Philippe on this one. It's not up to Unicode to decide
>>> whether a script is "practical," easy to read, easy to write, etc.
>
> But I think this is a matter of UTC and WG2 determining whether the script
> is in actual use, not of determining whether it is a "good" script in terms
> of the criteria that Stephan Stiller laid out.

The practicality of a script may also have different focuses. It is
not necessarily bad, in a presentation of the principles, and for
showing how it works and how it will be laid out, that the
documentation isntially uses very strict geometric shapes. The actual
use of the script (notably in African communities where it is intended
to be used) will be more creative, and will certainly derive more
suitable glyphs, thaty are both easier to handwrite, but also to read.

There's alsready an evidence using shapes with rounded corners.
However explaining a script that will basically use a single curve is
not easy. IT's probably best to learn it first with precise geometries
to train the eyes and the hand, in order to use consistent metrics. IF
this script ever succeeds, the too geometric shapes with sharp angles
and too many junctions will not survive long.

There will be verious styles, just like on other scripts, just compare
the old capital Latin script on stones with modern Latin. It will even
go faster here (and without this evolution, I doubt the script will
ever survice its author).
Received on Sat Jun 09 2012 - 17:36:09 CDT