Re: How about a typology for input methods

Suzanne McCarthy <suzmccarth at yahoo dot com> wrote:

> It is too painfully obvious to me that the typology of the script
> has nothing to do with the input method. Do you think this is
> acceptable? I suggested much earlier that there should be a
> framework not only for encoders but also for users. Well, the
> encoders have a typology, for better or worse, but the users should
> have one too.

Script typology isn't primarily for "encoders." It's mostly for (and
by) scholars of writing systems. Modern character coding systems do
generally try to encode a script according to its inherent structure,
though.

> Right now Tamil is coded to keyboard in order of phonetic sequence
> (alphabet?), edits as syllables (syllabic?)(there also exists a
> syllable input IME version 1 - not really working yet), and displays
> in non-linear sequence (abugida?).

You think the fact that Tamil displays in non-linear sequence is what
makes it an abugida?

-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/