From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:05:08 EDT
From: "Peter Constable" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> If you had read the proposal,
Without repeating yourself, why do you think I have not read it?
> you would know why this was rejected by
> the proposer and by UTC. You will notice that of the various letters
> with stroke in the UCS, none of them have decompositions to < X,
> combining solidus overlay >.
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 be
considered distinct from the combining sequence.
Are you sure that the decomposed combining sequence is really not used already,
given that it is already perfectly legal and standard?
I agree that the CEDI sign is to be encoded separately (currency symbols should
have their own identity detached from normal letters, because they won't be used
to create words in some defined language, and are not letter-cased.)
But what about <c, combining solidus> and <C, combining solidus>, aren't they
what is shown in the Americanist sample text just posted before (where case
applies to these letters). 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 with IPA?
If so, why only a lowercase c with stroke for IPA, and no uppercase C with
stroke? Is IPA favored and not Americanist texts, when they seem correlated in
their shared use of the letters? After all IPA also uses normal Latin and Greek
letters, and is not restricted to its own extended subset.
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 used out of
IPA (I think here about o with stroke and O with stroke). It should be the first
focus, and then IPA could use the lowercase letter exactly like it already uses
the lowercase o with stroke. The proposal would gain more acceptance (at ISO/IEC
10646 working groups), 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).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 13:55:48 EDT