Re: What's on-topic for this list

--- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> >
> > --- "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson
> > > <everson@...> wrote:
> > > > > At 01:29 +0000 2005-08-09, suzmccarth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would expect a keyboard to be able to
> > > > > access all the characters. There are not

that

> > > > > many.
> > > >
> > > > 284 in the proposal. That seems a lot to me,
> > > > even if you rely on the digits on the keypad
> > > > for numbers. You couldn't squeeze them all in
> > > > just using SHIFT and ALT-GR. CTRL and ALT are
> > > > pretty well reserved to applications. You may
> > > > well have to resort to dead keys for the
> > > > diacritics, though they won't always be

obvious

> > > > - for keying, is it CU or YU that is JU with a
> > > > vertical pair of dots added?
> > > >
> > > > The key stickers would be pretty cramped - 6
> > > > character per key! (4 Vai and 1 or 2 ASCII
> > > > characters marked.)
> > > >
> > > > > >How does this contrast with other scripts
> > > > > in Unicode?
> > > > >
> > > > > Um. Suzanne, this question is not specific
> > > > > enough to answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any set may be subsetted.
> > > >
> > > > CJK is probably the most heavily subsetted in
> > > > terms of numbers omitted characters.
> > > >
> > > > And the 'Latin script' most heavily of all in
> > > > terms of percentages.
> > >
> > > Once again, what does all this business of how
> > > Unicode or computers handle scripts have to do
> > > with _writing systems_?
> >
> > Please clarify for us the difference between
> > "script" and "writing system" above so that we can
> > see how you have not just answered your own
> > question.
>
> "Script" in Richard's messages clearly has to do
> with computer input schemes

Whether you take his mention of Latin script to relate
only to computer keyboards or also to typewriters I
find it relevant and on-topic.

> -- the sort of thing Suzanne used to pester
> us with all the time and ceased doing, perhaps
> because she's found a computer discussion list

This I find irrelvenat, off-topic, and not nice.

> where such queries are more appropriate. There must
> be scores or hundreds of computer discussion lists,
> but there is only one writing systems discussion

list

> that I know of.

I'm sure there are scores or hundreds which deal with
some aspect or other of computers but this and its
underutilised companion, vellum, are the only ones
I've ever found which deals with the aspect of how
writing systems are used on computers. If anybody here
is aware of another I shall gladly subscribe to that
also.

> Can't it be dedicated to the discussion of writing
> systems, and not to computer implementations
> thereof?

I believe the list creator and / or moderator has
already responded this criticism of yours.

> Has Andrew Dunbar contributed to the discussion of
> writing systems?

You may check the archives. I'm here to learn from the
experts about writing systems both off and on
computers. Sometimes I feel the need to defend the
comments of others when they are under attack and I
am interested in what they are saying.

Andrew Dunbar.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>

http://en.wiktionary.org -- http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com