Relayed FYI.
Alain
Kona
>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:52:54 -0500
>Subject: Re: Inuktitut, Cree, Ojibwe input methods?
>From: Ray Taylor <ray.taylor@acorda.ca>
>To: Alain Labonté <alb@sct1.gouv.qc.ca>,
> <jacques.meunier@cex.gouv.qc.ca>
>CC: <cac-jtc1-i18n@scc.ca>
>
>
>Reality Check! It would be impossible to have a single layout. This is
>really a locale issue and not a regional (i.e. Canada) one. This would
>require an extensive survey.
>
>Essentially there are 7 main language groups using syllabics:
>
>Blackfoot
>
>Carrier
>
>Cree
>
>Inuktitut
>
>Naskapi
>
>Ojibway
>
>Slavey
>
>
>Historically each band created their own font and keyboard layout. The
>character sets may be different as well. For example, I would expect to have
>possibly 4 different Cree character sets and keyboard layouts - one for each
>of the main bands. (Cree is the most geographically diverse aboriginal
>language - from Saskatchewan to Quebec)
>
>This is less of a problem for Inuktitut, as they tend to have regional
>authorities that speak with a single voice (i.e. the territorial government
>of Nunavut, and the region of Nunavik). Just the same, the two locales use
>different character sets and different keyboard layouts (and different sort
>orders!). This is not a dialectical problem (for example James Bay coast and
>Ungava Bay coast are dialectically different but they use the same
>characters and keyboard).
>
>We just managed to get Northern Quebec standardized on a SINGLE keyboard
>layout (where there were at least 3 before).
>
>Also, there is a very active movement to adopt syllabics where they were not
>previously used. While it is not likely that any new characters will be
>needed (but I am not a linguist, so I cannot say), You can be pretty sure
>they would be implementing a unique keyboard layout (as is the case
>currently with Northern Manitoba Cree) and sort order.
>
>By the same token, it would be impossible to have a default UCAS sort that
>would be useful to anyone (other than programmers maybe). Each language may
>share the syllabic glyphs but sort them differently. (This is perhaps the
>biggest flaw in UCAS - it saved space but creates headaches for each of the
>unique languages if you actually want to implement it. - I don't think this
>is a big enough issue to change it, though - at least not yet :)
>
>In other words, this is still very much an evolving and complex picture.
>Also keep in mind that users will not readily change the way they type. (I
>learned DVORAK, but could never type error-free and fast enough - I would
>keep reverting to QWERTY). Once the neuromuscular pathways are established
>they are very hard to undo.
>
>What I do not understand is that this information should have been one of
>the initial responses to any enquiries by any CSA/SCC work (or at least by
>CASEC). To me I see a very big gap in what is "out there" and what looks
>like the historical sources of the current knowledge "in here".
>
>(Like, did anyone ask the users, or did all the data come from the Canadian
>Bible Society :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ray
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 18:36:43 EST