Re: Mongolian Unicoding (was Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors)

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 10:41:27 EST

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Mongolian Unicoding (was Re: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors)"

    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
    >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.


    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 11:23:12 EST