LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  January 2010, Week 4

CONLANG January 2010, Week 4

Subject:

Re: TECH: IPA Font vs. Unicode?

From:

"Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:26:58 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (50 lines)

Right.  No existing Unicode character will ever be removed, moved, or
renamed.  The only thing they can do to the repertoire going forward
is add to it.

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, David McCann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 04:13 -0800, David Peterson wrote:
>
>> The IPA character [a] is different from the Roman character "a".
>> The Unicode character for both, though, is identical. This could
>> lead to big problems--especially if this is changed (which it ought
>> to be) in the future.
>
> Actually it isn't. That's why it wasn't encoded separately, unlike Roman
> g and IPA ɡ.
>
>> Consider a more problematic example. The high, front, unrounded
>> lax vowel [I] in Unicode is assigned the same code point as is the
>> lower case dotless i in Turkish. In fact, it's actually assigned two
>> codepoints: the Turkish dotless i, and a "Latin Letter Small Capital
>> I".
>
> These *are* different characters, since they have different serifs.
>
>> I wonder what would happen if you took a paragraph with
>> transcription and ordinary text and had the whole thing capitalized...?
>> My guess is that the characters that don't have their own codepoints,
>> and are used in other scripts, would all come out capitalized--including
>> the dotless i, [a] and all the others, and theta...
>
> Well, yes, you could get vɛʎaɡɪ becoming VƐʎAɡɪ! BUT WHO HAS PARAGRAPHS
> IN CAPITALS ANYWAY? Writing in capitals is even more inconsiderate of
> the poor reader than using SAMPA.
>
>> The current Unicode version of the IPA doesn't make sense, and if
>> they change it something that doesn't make sense down the road,
>> that could screw up a whole lot of things--or force an impossible
>> find-and-replace task with every document that ever used it.
>
> They aren't going to change it, ever. If you read the Handbook, it
> explains that encodings will never change, although new characters may
> be added. The whole point is to ensure that documents remain readable.
> The consequences of ad hoc encodings were demonstrated on this list last
> year, with the New Zealand conlanger who provided a .doc file that was
> unreadable, because she'd used ASCII with an old IPA font that is no
> longer available.
>

-- 
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options