Wendell Piez wrote:
> Does this mean you have a Writing System Declaration (or
> better yet, a Unicode mapping), for Elvish?
Actually, Sindarin in latin transcription can be encoded
in Latin 1 (ISO-8859-1), excepted the y-circumflex character.
For this symbol (as well as a few others used in the
etymological notes: greek letters, various diacritics, etc.)
Unicode provides all the necessary characters.
Therefore, the dictionary relies on Latin 1 with a few
extended Unicode characters, defined as additional entities
in the internal DTD. Note that another possibility would have
been to use the TEI WSP, which are more complete and define
all required characters for such a dictionary -- but I found
they were somewhat too 'heavy' for such a small number of
characters (23 so far).
Patrick T. Rourke wrote;
> I hope you're not going to start the "Elvish (Klingon, etc.)
> should be encoded in the BMP" argument here. There have been
> enough arguments about Tolkien's writing systems and whether
> or not they deserve to go into Unicode on other lists. [...]
Moreover, Tolkien's invented writing systems are hardly applicable
to a general dictionary -- there are different "modes" depending
on the language (dialectal usage), the period considered in the
imaginary history (historical usage) and the peoples involved
(geolectical usage). So there is not definitive orthography in
these writing systems, and a dictionary shoud rather stick with
the latin transcription (which presents enough problems of its
Being a new member, I am wondering whether such discussions
are off-topic or not. I mean they are not really related to
TEI, and should perhaps go on privately, if needed.
P.S. By the way, further to my previous post, some readers
mentioned to me that the ZIP archive of the dictionary
in TEI format is sometimes unavailable. The problem is
apparently on Yahoo/Geocities' side, so I have set up
a mirror address for it:
Sorry for the inconvenience.