RE: Public Review Issues Updated

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:39:32 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: New contribution"

    > Without repeating yourself, why do you think I have not read it?

    Because you are asking questions in a way that does not reflect relevant
    information that the proposal provides.

    > Yes but <X, combining solidus overlay> already exists in the standard
    > since
    > long, and what you are saying is that, for IPA, the new symbol should
    > considered distinct from the combining sequence.

    Yes, because as a general principle using combining overlays with
    letters is not best practice, and is explicitly not used in the Standard
    itself, as seen by the many letters with strokes of various types that
    have been in the Standard since before 3.0 but do not have
    decompositions to sequences involving combining overlays.

    I have agreement with UTC on this; if you are not convinced, I do not
    consider it a priority for me to try to convince you.

    > But what about <c, combining solidus> and <C, combining solidus>,
    > they
    > what is shown in the Americanist sample text just posted before (where
    > case
    > applies to these letters).

    Following what I consider to be best practice, I view these as evidence
    for new characters, one of which has already been accepted.

    > What is then the difference with this cased
    > version
    > used by Americanists and the symbol to use in IPA, when it seems clear
    > that the
    > Americanist orthograph was directly derived from phonetic analysis
    > IPA?

    Nothing. That's the point! (BTW, the c-stroke is not used in IPA. Now I
    *know* you have not read the proposal.)

    > If so, why only a lowercase c with stroke for IPA, and no uppercase C
    > stroke? Is IPA favored and not Americanist texts

    The proposal was based on Americanist phonetic transcriptions. I knew of
    the potential for an uppercase pair, but had never encountered it. I
    only proposed what I knew of for certain.

    > So the public review should better be refined by accepting both c with
    > stroke
    > and C with stroke with the same status as other Latin combinations
    > out of
    > IPA (I think here about o with stroke and O with stroke).

    The public review document does not need to be changed. The proposal --
    already approved by UTC -- gives c-stroke status like that of o with
    stroke (U+00F8 -- *not* < o, combining solidus overlay>!!). A proposal
    for C-stroke can be prepared at a later time.

    > It should be the
    > first
    > focus, and then IPA could use the lowercase letter exactly like it
    > uses
    > the lowercase o with stroke.

    That is precisely what the new character achieves. But you are mistaken
    in thinking that this involves a combining overlay.

    > The proposal would gain more acceptance (at
    > ISO/IEC
    > 10646 working groups)

    I think I know a little bit about what is needed to gain acceptance in

    > notably if it is deminstrated that this is used for
    > actual languages and not only for IPA notations (for IPA usage, a
    > decomposed
    > sequence would clearly be enough).

    Face it: your appeal to o with stroke has proven yourself wrong about
    the decomposed sequence.

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 12:24:27 EDT