--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Ewell" <dewell@...> wrote:

> Would someone please explain to me why ALL of the following can't
> happen:

They could all happen, but there are the following possibilities:

> 1. Michael designs a Latin-based input system for Vai.

But the church promotes the SIL system instead. (It will probably be
extended when their Unicode font comes out - at present it's limited
by their only providing an 8-bit hack font.)

> 2. Someone designs a Vai-glyph layout for a 47/48-key keyboard that
> uses dead keys to access all the glyphs.

But no-one publicises it because Michael and SIL have already created
keyboards.

> 3. Someone designs a Vai-glyph layout for a 47/48-key keyboard that
> uses shift states to access all the glyphs.

(i) But no-one publicises it because Michael and SIL have already
created keyboards.

(ii) Applications grab too many of the combinations. I'm not joking -
aren't alt-gr and shift the only shift keys safely available with
Windows applications? I think you need a combination of shift states
and dead keys.

> 4. Someone designs a really big physical keyboard with a separate

key

> for every glyph.

But such a luxury item doesn't sell.

Actually, (2) and (3) do face another pitfall - how does one cheaply
label the keys? (Legible labelling is an issue, too.) I have
visions of stickers peeling off in the humidity.

> In particular I don't see why it's such an awful thing for Michael

to

> design a Latin-based keyboard for Vai, unless it comes with some

kind of

> legal stipulation that the user can never switch to a Vai-glyph
> keyboard, even if she wants to and one is available.

Because if he doesn't design the glyph-based keyboard, someone else
will have to?

Richard.