Fwd: canIPA

From: Charlie Ruland ☘ (ruland@luckymail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2010 - 12:13:45 CST

  • Next message: Shriramana Sharma: "Re: canIPA worth being encoded?"

    FYI, I’m forwarding a message I received from Luciano Canepari on Tue,
    23 Mar 2010 02:37:12 +0100.

    Charlie ☘

    — — — Luciano Canepari wrote: — — —

    >Dear Mr Ruland,
    >thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your interest in my system of
    >phonetic notation, and I am very happy that a proposal for its
    >inclusion into the Unicode corpus has been made. Some points must be
    >made clear, nonetheless, in order to fully understand how canIPA
    >The system in itself started as a moderately extended version of the
    >official IPA set, but as soon as digital typography became a reality
    >available to everyone, I realized that there was no point in dealing
    >with loads of diacritics, while unitary glyphs were far more
    >appropriate and readable. The system possesses several hundreds of
    >symbols nowadays, but it's hard to determine the exact number, since
    >some composite symbols have been used just a few times, if not
    >merely once, for very specific needs.
    >As it is used in my books, the canIPA is primarily encoded in the
    >Mac OS Roman charset; since this allows no more than 221 characters
    >(with some further non-typographical ones), during the years I
    >developed a peculiar modus operandi: besides a number of fonts for
    >general purposes, I create(d) a unique Roman font for each language
    >treated in depth, so that I have all the symbols I need at hand, and
    >only those. This strategy proved most effective in combination with
    >the classical QZERTY Italian (non-Pro) Keyboard Layout, with which
    >the typist never resort to the Insert Symbol function, because all
    >the glyphs can be input(ted) via keystrokes.
    >Nevertheless, in the last years, my alumni insisted in adapting the
    >system to the Unicode standard, and developed a series of
    >Unicode-based fonts. The last one, called Sophonetica, can be
    >regarded as quite complete, at least for most purposes. Obviously,
    >it would be possible to reduce the total amount of symbols encoded,
    >provided all the remnant composite glyphs can be obtained by
    >combining fundamental characters with diacritics. Still, as this is
    >the core of the canIPA philosophy, it is preferable to treat each
    >and one glyph as an independent representation of a single phone,
    >and therefore to encode it as it is, a unitary character.
    >I personally do not use Sophonetica, but I do recognize it as a
    >viable alternative for those who intend to employ the canIPA but do
    >not (want to) adopt the Mac OS Roman charset, or do not use Apple
    >computers altogether. If this is fine for you, I think the best
    >thing to do is getting you in touch with a couple friends of mine
    >who are familiar with both OS Roman fonts and Unicode, so that you
    >can evaluate how to proceed.
    >Best regards,
    Luciano Canepari

    Perhaps you may want to visit my website (http://venus.unive.it/canipa/)...
    孔曰 書不盡言 言不盡意
    Confucius said:
    Writing cannot express all words,
    words cannot encompass all ideas.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 23 2010 - 12:20:35 CST