Re: Stokoe Notation (sign language)

From: Ken Whistler <>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:04:31 -0800

On 3/6/2017 2:48 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> A few years back, there was a set of questions to the UTC (L2/12-133)
> asking for direction on encoding Stokoe notation. Did these ever get an
> answer, and is there anything currently happening with Stokoe encoding?

The short answer is no.

Stokoe notation has a bunch of features that make it a very low priority
for UTC attention.

And for those who never saw a systematic collection of marks on paper
that they didn't think deserved immediate encoding in the Unicode
Standard, riddle me this:

Would anyone be willing to put in the effort to define a formal markup
language (ML) specification that would accurately cover all aspects of
the notation and its use? If not, why would you expect the UTC to devote
time to figuring out how to "flatten" all that markup complexity and
create a text model and plain text encoding for the same notation?
Particularly if there is very little indication that implementers of
generic rendering systems have the interest, time, or resources to then
add that complexity to their text renderers.

Received on Tue Mar 07 2017 - 11:05:34 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 07 2017 - 11:05:34 CST