Re: Conlang Unicode Font (was Re: Kamakawi Unicode Font Question)

Lars wrote:
<<
Here I've missed something it seems. What's the conlang registry?
I've done a bit of high-traffic deleting the last few days.
 >>

Here it is:

<http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/>

It's a coordinated effort to assign standardized Unicode values
to Conlang fonts in the Private Use Area, the purpose being if
we wanted to produce a font, like the one I'm putting together,
we can have everyone's script in one font, and use them on the
web.

Lars:
<<
I've been fiddling with the Urianian scripts lately, using a TypeTool
demo version. Seems like the program may be worth $99. (Agree?)
 >>

1000%.  I bought it in 2001 (and upgraded when it went from
TypeTool 2 to TypeTool 3), and I certainly don't regret it.  It's
taken a lot of time to really learn how everything works (and,
admittedly, I'm still learning), but it's extremely worthwhile--
and relatively cheap, for a font creation program you pay for.
(For example, they also sell FontLab, for--what, $500?  More?
And playing around with the demo version, I actually prefer
TypeTool.)

***

Regarding the Kamakawi Unicode blocks, I've run into a bit of
a quandary.  I first added the numbers, then the punctuation,
then the syllabary, and then the purely grammatical glyphs, but
now I've come to the rest of it.  I have glyphs which:

(1) Are combinations of two syllabary glyphs.

(2) Are combinations of three or more syllabary glyphs.

(3) Are combinations of a syllabary glyph and a different glyph.

(4) Are combinations of three or more different types of glyphs.

(5) Are unrelated, but recognizable, ideographs (e.g., the glyph
for "shark" looks like a shark fin).

(6) Are unrelated and unrecognizable ideographs.

(7) Are monosyllabic, or disyllabic, or polysyllabic.

(8) Have anywhere from one stroke to 12+.

So I'm not sure how to arrange these glyphs.  If I did it purely
alphabetically, you wouldn't know it, because the Unicode name
is in English (e.g., KAMAKAWI IDEOGRAPH DOG).  If I did
alphabetically by English word, I don't see the point of it.  If I
did it by the look of the glyph, I'd need some sort of way to
order glyphs with the same overall shape, but different flourishes,
etc.  If I did it by stroke number, it'd obscure the relationship
between some glyphs.  However, it seems like it might make
sense to separate the glyphs you could (probably) pronounce
by looking at them from the glyphs that you can't.

The way I started out was I went in Kamakawi alphabetical order,
and then by stroke number (and, where they have the same
number of strokes, Kamakawi alphabetical order).  I did this
for A, but I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with it.  Does anyone
have any advice?  What does Chinese do, for example?  My
Egyptian book simply has three to four different lists (alphabetical
Egyptian, alphabetical English, arranged by size, and arranged
by theme, if I remember rightly).  With Unicode, I can only do
one.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Replies