On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:54:39 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le sam. 9 févr. 2019 à 20:55, Egmont Koblinger via Unicode < > [email protected]> a écrit : > > > Hi Asmus, > > > > > On quick reading this appears to be a strong argument why such > > > emulators > > will > > > never be able to be used for certain scripts. Effectively, the > > > model > > described works > > > well with any scripts where characters are laid out (or can be > > > laid out) > > in fixed > > > width cells that are linearly adjacent. > > > > I'm wondering if you happen to know: > > > > Are there any (non-CJK) scripts for which a mechanical typewriter > > does not exist due to the complexity of the script? > > > > Look into South Asian scripts (Lao, Khmer, Tibetan...) and... The Khmer script is an interesting case - see http://onkhmertype.com/the-cambodian-typewriter. The problem there is that deep cells are needed. What's the VTE algorithm for the vertical extent of the cell? The only problem I can see for Lao is that there can be two marks below a consonant. Otherwise, a straightforward adaptation of a Thai typewriter should suffice. There's a Tai Tham typewriter in the National Museum in Bangkok. However, spelling may have been adapted to cope with any limitations. >... large syllabaries (CANS, Ethiopian). That's more a matter of extent than complexity. Sesquidimensional Egyptian hieroglyphs could be tricky - they'll be like producing 2-D renderings of ideographic description sequences. There could be a problem with standardising cuneiform character widths. Richard.
