From: Dean Snyder (dean.snyder@jhu.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 10:41:27 EST
Andrew C. West wrote at 6:43 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
>Knowing nothing about Cuneiform, I can't say whether FVSs are a suitable
>option
>for Cuneiform or not, but if Dean is thinking about using FVSs like ordinary
>Variation Selectors (i.e. applied manually by the user to select a distinct
>character), then I agree with Michael that this is "pseudo-coding" and
>probably not appropriate.
From the end users point of view, I see FSVs being used two ways in cuneiform:
* Completely hidden - behind the input methods we will need for
cuneiform anyway, and therefore NOT manually entered. This is the way
most work in cuneiform would be done. Practically all, if not all, work
in the later periods of cuneiform would use this completely transparent
method. And much of the work in early cuneiform would also be done this way.
* Entered explicitly - by researchers who need to compose ad hoc
glyphs. This would typically be for the earlier periods of cuneiform when
the ancient scribes productively created new signs from pre-existing base
signs - periods that are not that well known or researched by scholars
now, which is why we have decided not to even try to add all the archaic
signs to a static cuneiform repertoire - one of the major problems being
in just determining what ARE the graphemes in archaic cuneiform.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 11:23:12 EST