From: Ernest Cline (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 13:25:45 CDT
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <email@example.com>
> At 11:07 -0400 2004-05-07, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >Viva Visible Speech! (We're working on the proposal...) Yeah, it
> >would almost have been more sensible if IPA had been a unique
> >alphabet, not sharing its characters (or for that matter even its
> >glyphs) with anyone else.
> Except that it's Latin.
If the IPA is Latin, then so is Fraser. IIRC (altho I'm only 60-70%
certain I am recalling correctly here that it was you and not someone
else on this list) you indicated that you believe Fraser should be a
separate script. Both base their glyph repertoire on that of Latin, but
have features such as a lack of casing and a stricter glyph definition
that make disunification from Latin desirable IMO.
However, as I said before, I doubt if total disunification of IPA and
Latin is feasible at this time, but I would like to see where IPA makes
a distinction between two glyph variants of the same Latin Letter that
both glyph variants and not just one variant was encoded. As it
stands now, it means that any font that incorporates IPA has to use
specific glyph variants of a and g as a and g because of the
disunification that IPA makes between those variants and the current
unification of one of those variants that IPA uses with the Latin small a
and small g. Given that some fonts historically prefer the glyph variant
that is a different character for IPA, I don't consider that acceptable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT