Relayed FYI. Alain Kona
>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:52:54 -0500 >Subject: Re: Inuktitut, Cree, Ojibwe input methods? >From: Ray Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Alain Labonté <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >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