On Thu, 31 May 2001, Edward Cherlin wrote:
> At 5:12 PM +0200 5/31/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> [snip]
> The manual Hangul typewriter I learned on had multiple forms for
> initial consonants, supplied by means of an extra shift level. (Yes!
> A mechanical buckybit!!
Jim: I too have access to a manual Korean typewriter; about half the
bars attached to what hits the ribbon are angled to allow building the
full character. It also has ribbon problems so I don't use it.
> [snip]
>
> >The minimal model that I have in mind is slightly less "minimal": the least
> >quality that won't sacrifice the normal orthographic rules of a language.
>
> Which rules are the normal ones? Every publisher I've had anything to
> do with has used different sets of rules, over quite a wide range. We
> can't even agree whether ligatures are required in English, or
> whether an ASCII-sorted index is sufficiently human-readable.
>
Jim: Different products require different levels of display quality. I
doubt that one set of orthographic rules would satisfy everyone. Vendors
will develop output software with a particular users in mind. This is
fine. My hope is that a continuum of quality could be defined for various
scripts to help users assess different vendor's offerings. For roman
script output could vary from telegraphic all caps to all the way
to elegant ligatures and kerning so capital A following capital W overlap
or appear to have the right space. Is it unrealistic to hope that such a
continum or lists of capabilities could be devised for various scripts?
Sorting is another topic deserving a list of its own for each langauge
or script. For roman script Librarians have long had filing rules. Like
other standards, there are several, in the U.S.: 1. American Library
Association, and 2. Library of Congress. I suspect no software completely
follows either rules. (For example, filing roman numerals as numbers
conflicts with some Polish one letter prepositions.) I do not know enough
about filing other scripts to say what is wanted, but suspect opinions
vary. (For example, some want a Devanagari letter with a candrabindu to
file before one with none.) Again, rather than a single rigid code one
could perhaps hope to specify various levels of excellence and then ask
vendors what their product supports.
>
> Edward Cherlin
>
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official
views of any government or any agency of any.
Phone: 202 707-9612; Fax: 202 707-0955; US mail: I.T.S. Dev.Gp.4, Library
of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20540-9334 U.S.A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:18 EDT