From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 18 2004 - 20:47:40 CDT
From: "D. Starner" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Christopher Fynn wrote:
>> Is there any plan to include sets of shorthand (Pitman, Gregg etc.)
>> symbols in Unicode? Or are they something which is specifically excluded?
> They're a form of handwriting, which is generally excluded. Why do
> they need to be encoded in a computer? General practice, at least,
> is to transcribe them into standard writing first.
Don't forget that shorthand methods are still taught today, with methods
published in books. Books are published today using special encodings or
using image scans. Scanned images are often hard to create cleanly, and this
is often a problem for the first readers of such publications, when the
system requires carefully drawn signs, that would benefit from numeric
There are good reasons why a shorthand-written text should be encoded as
such, without going through transcription to the "normal" alphabetic system.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 20:48:17 CDT