Shorthand writing systems usually are not used for information interchange.
Thus there seems to be no reason for encoding them.
The Tironian notes, comprising many thousand characters, are the only
exeption, I know. The Tironian et (U+204A) is still in use today. Few other
ones of them, which
Sounds a bit like Arabic...
Not really, because the actual rendering is bidimensionnal, not
linear. It's difficult to predict the line height, as the baseline
changes according to the context of previous characters in the word,
and its writing direction (forward or backward).
Then it
D. Starner responded to C. Fynn,
Shorthand symbols are of course printed in books on shorthand :-)
But as images, not text. There's likely to be arrows, showing the
directions, and any changes to glyph form are likely to be errors.
The Sign of the Four by Doyle was published in
I just found Faulmann's Buch der Schrift online,
which may be of common interest.
http://82.139.198.142/crophius/faulmann_images_plus.asp
To load the next GIF-image click plus.
Gerd
James Kass wrote:
As stated, though, the PUA appears to be the only place for shorthand
presently. Shorthands don't seem to be on the Roadmaps, so maybe
no proposals exist?
Unfortunately, in OpenType at least, complex shaping is not applied to
PUA characters.
There still seem to be many places
D. Starner wrote:
Do stenotype machines produce shorthand symbols? What I've seen to
TV seem to produce Latin letters, and the keyboard image found through
Google had Latin letter on it.
In any case, that's possibly a valid case but it would be nice if the
people who had such data were
At 13:46 +0100 2004-09-19, Christopher Fynn wrote:
So, am I right in assuming that were someone put together a decent
proposal for one or more shorthand scripts, there is no particular
reason in principle why it would be rejected?
You are right.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
Scanning thru some arabian books the following sign attracted my
attention:
It looks like ARABIC LETTER HAH (isolated form) in a circle. It
obviously denotes copyright. It is used consistently in books
printed in Saudi-Arabia, but I have never seen it in a book from any other
country (including
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
From: Christopher Fynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Not really, because the actual rendering is bidimensionnal, not linear.
It's difficult to predict the line height, as the baseline changes
according to the context of previous characters in the word, and its
writing direction
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
GESCHUETZE
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity,
just like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING
COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
All of which were in existing standards, so
Jrg Knappen wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or
At 19:12 +0100 2004-09-19, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity,
just like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING
COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
All
Jorg Knappen writes:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an
Christopher Fynn writes:
One trouble is that OpenType shaping engines apply shaping features in a
script specific manner.
Then OpenType is broken in this respect. Unicode constantly tells people
that they will have to use better technology instead of Unicode adding
something.
If someone
At 11:37 AM 9/19/2004, D. Starner wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign
Jorg Knappen writes:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN
D. Starner shalesller at writeme dot com wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just
like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN
or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an endless stream
At 12:11 -0700 2004-09-19, Asmus Freytag wrote:
As it stands, I continue to have strong doubts on the feasibility of
relying on character sequences for any document that's going to be
interchanged - so it's either adding a character or using images for
realistic applications. Given the nature
Asmus Freytag writes:
Given
the nature of the symbol in question, I would personally see no reason to
object
to encoding it - especially given the current and projected lack of
availability
of other alternatives.
It's a simple combining character. Even if you can't do arbitrary
20 matches
Mail list logo
