Print

Print


Stephen Mulraney wrote at 2005-06-30 14:26:17 (+0100) 

 > I wouldn't suggest for a moment that Unicode replace CXS. Unicode
 > putssome demands on the person who wants to see it, not just on
 > thosethat want to send it. You need to correctly configure your
 > mailer, oreven use a different one in some cases. Also, fonts that
 > are both notugly and contain the IPA range are desirable. And it's
 > not always easyto tell what fonts a successfully configured
 > application *is* using...(although I *think* when I see successful
 > Unicode IPA in thunderbird,it's using the lovely Gentium. Firefox
 > claims not to know about Gentium,but it looks like it's using
 > it...)

Clearly, there's a balance to be struck between promoting Unicode
through use (assuming one thinks it's a good thing in principle, which
many of us here probably do) and causing inconvenience to readers
unequipped to display it.  I'd like Unicode-capable softmare to become
relatively common and easier to use, and actually using it in mail is
one way to promote this end; but of course you can't push things
forward without running into the shortcomings of the existing situation.
Providing dual ASCII/Unicode versions seems like a reasonable
compromise.

(Incidentally, am I the only person who doesn't like Gentium?  The
glyphs seem nice enough at large sizes and it's probably a fine print
font, but on the screen it looks awful, on my system.)

 > My interest in Unicode on the list comes from my interest in
 > orthographies.My conlangs have usually had pretty weird looking
 > Latin or Cyrillic basedorthographies. and I like to use the same
 > scheme, as much as possible.in both notebooks and computer files -
 > and in examples I've sent to thelist in the past. Some examples
 > from past posts, from when mypermanently unfinished (better,
 > unbegun) lang was called ML4:

 > >>_ukt,Ak(Bk cnuldzu$,1 d,Ak$,1 G(B k,Ah(Bte_ ["}kt@k "tsn}ldZ}_nj@h keT_je]
 > >> ,Ad(Bld,Ar(B    |,Af(Bld,Ax(B|     [{ld2]:       three [<<aldh]>> g,Ad$,1"{(Beczr |g,Af$,1'8$R(Bet$,1$##~(B| [g{T_jetS4]:  watch-tower, (generally) tower [<<gabtesor]>> hr,Ar(Bl$,1"{,Ar(Bw |x$,1#~,Ax(Bl$,1'8,Ax(Bv|  [x42lT2v]:    to go down, descend [<<r,Az(B-lh,Aa(B(m)-teiv,Az(B]>> la$,1!- % b(B   |l$,1#Q(Bw$,1#T(Bl$,1%t(B|    [lAwOl=e]:    city, [laufe-heile]>> mni$,1"{,Ar(B   |m$,1$R(Bn$,1$R(Bi$,1'8,Ax(B|  [m_jn_jiT2]:  four [<<amn,Ai(Bth]>> cz$,1 %(Bd$,1%f(Bli,Ak(Bh$,1 %(Bzio |t$,1$##T,Ap$,1$R(Bl$,1%t$R#Y(Bx$,1#T(Bz$,1$R(Bu| [tSOD_jl_e_j@xOz_ju]: officer, commander; 

 > Sure, when sending to the list, I could use some unpretty
 > ASCIIification, butthat would seem to defeat the purpose, like
 > giving phonetic details in a "soundslike" scheme, or just omitting
 > the conlang completely and giving aninterlinear :).
 > But I'd usually try to provide an ASCII equivalent (like the CXS in
 > the aboveexamples). The Unicode is just an extra for them as can
 > read it.
 > 
 > PS.. Do my messages come through mangled? In general, or just when
 > Iinclude Unicode. I'm thinking of the copy of one of my emails
 > yesterday thatI saw through it being quoted in a reply of Mark's -
 > it lacked linebreaks ina semi-thorough way

This one did, and so did the one before.  None of your earlier
messages did, though, so it correlates with your use of Unicode.
(Fortunately I can clear this kind of thing up pretty well in Emacs,
as I did in my reply before.)