Re: Draft Proposal to encode the English Phonotypic Alphabet

From: philip chastney (
Date: Thu Jul 08 2010 - 02:14:23 CDT

  • Next message: a a: "Re: 001B, 001D, 001C"

    FWIW, if I were you, I'd forget all about CLDR

    for one thing, there is no evidence that the originators of EPA ever considered title-casing, and I think it would be wrong of us to retro-fit mechanisms which were not part of the original

    as Doug Ewell remarked in another thread, character names serve as unique identifiers, few other promises are made

    that being so, it should be enough to collect all the unique glyphs, ensure they're given Unicode values, and accept that the current mechanism cannot (easily) handle the degree of variety required

    relationships between upper and lower case characters can then be described in the notes (a little like the situation with Georgian)

    relationships between upper and lower case glyphs can be handled by OpenType tables

    not ideal, perhaps, but it may be sufficient for what is, after all, a small community

    finally, an observation prompted by your last paragraph: I had thought, at one time, that something like Pitman's Initial Teaching Alphabet could be mapped onto the IPA, and OpenType tables could then provide the glyph appropriate to the context, but I'm now convinced it can't be done

    EPA and Pitman's ITA are phonemic, and do not map one-to-one onto the set of sounds in the IPA

    regards   . . .   /phil

    --- On Thu, 8/7/10, Karl Pentzlin <> wrote:

    From: Karl Pentzlin <>
    Subject: Re: Draft Proposal to encode the English Phonotypic Alphabet
    To: "Mark Davis ☕" <>
    Date: Thursday, 8 July, 2010, 2:26 AM

    Am Mittwoch, 30. Juni 2010 um 18:26 schrieb Mark Davis ☕
     (re )

    MD> A couple of very quick comments.
    >> A special phenomenon of EPA is that the combination of upper and lower
    >> case letters is peculiar in EPA, and changes between the different EPA stages.
    MD> The committee decided that any further special casing should be
    MD> handled in CLDR, you'd want a proposal to that group. For that to
    MD> be done, you'd need first to propose a BCP47 variant to indicate
    MD> EPA English. This would all be done well after the encoding were accepted.

    If I understand this correct, this means:
    - In the proposal itself, I have to list the special casings for having
      them fully documented, but do not need to mention the Unicode data
      file "special-casing.txt".
    - Then, I can sumbit the proposal.
    - Then, if and after the proposal is accepted by UTC, I have to propose four
      variants of English for inclusion into the CLDR according to the
      four states with different case pairing:
      en EPA_1847
      en EPA_1852
      en EPA_1860
      en EPA_1868
      and, especially, only then I have to learn about the CLDR details
      how to do this and how to include the special case pairing.
    Is this the correct way?

    Also, if variants of English are to be included into the CLDR that
    way, are these four states sufficient, or have the changes of the
    meanings of some letters (i.e. the mapping to the units which then
    were recognized as the "sounds" of English) to be regarded (as these
    mappings affect the accomplishment of correct searching results)?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 08 2010 - 02:22:15 CDT