William, Peter,
Unlike Peter, I wouldn't object to a new term with a precise meaning, as
it might be useful, even if it's absence hasn't been a problem to date.
However, I have to agree with Peter the name seems very inappropriate as
the roots do not easily map onto existing concepts, and there are
existing roots that would work better. graphimap or glyphimap or
glyphicode would be more natural.
I am not proposing these nor do I want to enter a discussion of the best
term for the concept. I just want to highlight that if you are going to
create a definition of a relationship between existing objects, you
might choose terms with a basis in existing usage. Were you to define a
new concept or new object I could understand going outside the domain to
create a term.
A holomap sounds like what I would draw were I to program the Holodeck
on the USS Enterprise. It should at least refer to encoding of
3-Dimensional characters which can be viewed from any direction. (To my
mind anyway.)
But I share Peter's sense that there is no problem to be solved and
therefore a discussion of the term to improve it, is not warranted or
useful. If the term were distinguishing one concept from another, or
having a great deal of precision, or rooted in industry terminology and
therefore more naturally occuring like Peter's verbified cmap, it might
be worth pursuing. The term is also not saving much wording relative to
"creating a font table".
Simply throwing out terms and definitions, without establishing a need
and ignoring existing industry terms, seems to be a self-inflating and
glory-seeking action, rather than a desire to make a helpful
contribution. I mention this not as an attack, just to make you aware of
the potential perception.
I am willing to admit, that those of us (Americans?) that verbify, have
less of a need for new terms not based in existing noun roots. Perhaps
others that do not verbify, might find a term useful.
tex
Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2002 03:30:17 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>
> "A new word for the English language"
>
> Correction: a new word for William Overington's ideolect.
>
> We don't need a new word coined for this purpose. Those of us involved
> in font development and the digital font industry have managed fine
> without it thus far; I don't think any of us have developed any sudden
> urge for a new way to express ourselves in technical discussions. And
> if we did, I doubt "holomap" is what any of us would choose. We'd
> probably do some verbing (so common among English speakers, it seems)
> and say "cmap" as in "It is almost never necessary to cmap a ligature
> glyph."
>
> - Peter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Constable
>
> Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
> Tel: +1 972 708 7485
> E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com
XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Aug 03 2002 - 10:20:42 EDT