From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2005 - 01:10:10 CST
Doug <UList at dfa dash mail dot com> wrote:
> The users of Klingon now get together, and decide they are going to
> use "Private Differentiation Selector 5" for Klingon.
> They simply take the codepoints of the Latin letters which
> transliterate Klingon, and pair "PDS 5" with each letter's codepoint.
> Now, users with a smart Klingon font get Klingon glyphs. Users who
> lack a smart font with Klingon glyphs automatically get the Latin
> transliteration. We can also do useful things for learners, by
> dynamically switching the specified font with DHTML in a Klingon
> learning Web page.
Neither variation selectors (public or private) not any other mechanism
within Unicode is intended for automatic 1-to-1 transliteration. The
only exception I can think of is a small number of Latin digraphs
intended for transliteration with Cyrillic. These proved to be neither
necessary nor sufficient, and their use is discouraged.
> And there are absolutely no problems with a Korean character showing
> up in the middle of their Web page -- as may currently occur with the
You have exactly the same issues with font dependency using this
approach as you would with the PUA, except that your solution requires
"smart fonts" and the PUA solution doesn't.
> So we now see how a small block of codepoints, with almost zero impact
> on processing, can vastly increase the usefulness of Unicode to real-
> world people.
1. Interspersing a variation selector after EVERY letter does not
constitute "almost zero impact."
2. Variation selectors are for making minor glyphic distinctions within
a character, not for turning Latin into Klingon and vice versa.
3. This mechanism does not "vastly increase the usefulness of Unicode"
to anyone. Mark Shoulson already explained that Klingon-alphabet users
get along just fine with a PUA-based solution.
4. Adopting the style of a professor lecturing his students does not
change any of points 1 through 3.
> What we have done is turn Unicode from a "one dimensional array" into
> a "two dimensional array". The primary (and defaultable) glyphs and
> meanings get real codepoints along the main axis, and secondary (and
> allowably ignorable) glyphs and/or meanings get "differentiators"
> along the secondary axis.
> It's an extremely useful and efficient system for dealing with things
> -- glyphs or meanings -- that have an identity as a "subset" of a real
Please read up on the Unicode Standard. Klingon letters are not
"subsets" of Latin letters.
> I'm going to be elaborating on Diaeresis vs. Umlaut further in an
> upcoming post.
You do know this problem has already been solved, right?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 23 2005 - 01:11:12 CST