Great! I'm glad
they're working together on it. I hope great things
come out of the collaboration.
I know I brought this up before but I'm wondering,
Stuart, if a concept of relative coordinate systems
was discussed in your thesis? I did a quick scan so
I'm not sure if it was. What I mean by "relative" is
a coordinate system that's related to a previous
symbol in a sign according to that sign's signspelling
The coordinate for the first symbol would be in
absolute coordinates according to the signbox, then
the second symbol would relate to the first symbol
according to a coordinate system using a point of the
first symbol as the origin.
Doing it that way may allow establishing matrices of
symbol pairing in a sign. I would imagine this to be
similar to "kerning" and possibly define distances
according to the pairs rotation of not only themselves
but to each other. Similar to what you were saying
about establishing minimum distances.
About the overlap of symbols that you mention. I was
wondering if it couldn't also be solved by a matrix of
symbol pairing so that a particular matrix value would
indicate overlap - say, a value of -1. On the other
hand, do you think it would be possible to create
totally different symbols that are overlaps of two
symbols? I ask this as that's what's done in other
languages when there's an overlap. For instance, "æ"
which looks like "a" and "e" overlapped but is it's
own symbol. I would hazard a guess that separate
symbols are only possible when there's only a few.
On 5/9/2011 1:06 PM, Valerie Sutton wrote:
May 9, 2011
Hello Bill -
Just want you to know that we have a group
of Unicode-knowledgeable people working
together on our SignWriting proposals that
will be presented to the Unicode-related
meetings over a period of years, and Steve and
Stuart are both in the group, along with
others as well - so we are all working
together...The proposals have been separated
into proposing the encoding of the symbols, or
characters, first, (of the International
SignWriting Alphabet 2010) and then once the
symbols have been encoded, we will present a
second proposal related to layout and symbol
placement issues - so that second area is
where different theories will be discussed
until we can come up with a final decision for
a second proposal - so we are taking this one
step at at a time...
An exciting time for all of us - smile -
On May 9, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Bill Reese
Wow, that was a lot of work! I do have
one question. How would the most recent
work in Unicode and, more particularly,
what Steve Slevinski has written to the
list affect the portion where you talk
about what may be needed for successful
Unicode acceptance? From what it
appears, it's well on it's way to
acceptance with what Steve and Michael
Everson have done.
On 5/8/2011 1:02 AM, Stuart Thiessen
Hello, all! I
know it's been a long time, no see. I
wanted to let you know that I have
completed my MA thesis on SignWriting.
For those of you interested in reading
it, you can download a PDF from the
University website. Just so you know,
the PDF itself is about 22MB.
If you have any questions about
it, just let me know.