From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:39:32 EDT
> 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
> 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>,
> what is shown in the Americanist sample text just posted before (where
> 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
> used by Americanists and the symbol to use in IPA, when it seems clear
> that the
> Americanist orthograph was directly derived from phonetic analysis
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
> 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
> focus, and then IPA could use the lowercase letter exactly like it
> 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
> 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
> sequence would clearly be enough).
Face it: your appeal to o with stroke has proven yourself wrong about
the decomposed sequence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 12:24:27 EDT