But that would only become a usability issue if you had an ogam screenreader and that's just not happening. Which means that either for reading in an online/print document even if the code technically read RM, to human eyes the difference wouldn't be visible. Nobody reads hyperlinks to that extent. - ThreadSky

akerbeltz.bsky.social • 307 days ago

But that would only become a usability issue if you had an ogam screenreader and that's just not happening. Which means that either for reading in an online/print document even if the code technically read RM, to human eyes the difference wouldn't be visible. Nobody reads hyperlinks to that extent.

Comments

andubhghailleach.bsky.social•307 days ago

I think you’re underestimating the frequency with which ogham is used, and the variety of ways. A screenreader is by no means the only application which can be affected by - let’s call it what it is - deliberately incorrect spelling for the sake of a graphical approximation. I’ve encountered many.

babelstone.co.uk•307 days ago

What is the correct spelling for a defective character form (ᚏ written with one too many strokes)?

andubhghailleach.bsky.social•307 days ago

What makes you call it defective? It was used at least three times in a single source. I suspect it was absolutely deliberate. If we were talking about a Roman script R with a suspension stroke, you would hardly call it a defective spelling just because the intention behind its usage wasn’t clear.

babelstone.co.uk•307 days ago

If you think that the six-stroke form is a distinct character from ᚏ then propose it for encoding as a separate character. I doubt the evidence is strong enough to be accepted for encoding, but it has a better chance than a combining stroke character (which imo has zero chance)

andubhghailleach.bsky.social•307 days ago

I'm not prepared, based on the available evidence, to say it's a distinct character from ᚏ, or even a character at all. I will say there is strong evidence of scribes treating single strokes as characters, i.e. semantically meaningful, sub-letter glyphs which could be variably combined into letters.

charlottebuff.com•307 days ago

If these really are just graphical variants with no difference in meaning or pronunciation, wouldn’t standardised variation sequences be the way to go? That’s how variant forms in the Myanmar, Phags-Pa, and Manichaean scripts are already being handled, and this case seems very similar to those.

andubhghailleach.bsky.social•307 days ago

I think this would probably require consensus among experts that 6-stroke R is an acceptable variant of 5-stoke R, and that their use cases are not distinct. I do think that standardised variation sequences might be a good way to deal with the character variants of the attested ogham ciphers though.

babelstone.co.uk•307 days ago

I agree that SVS would be an acceptable solution, but the UTC has repeatedly stated that it is not willing to define SVS for epigraphic or calligraphic glyph variants (they already rejected my proposal for ogham variation sequences in L2/16-110)

andubhghailleach.bsky.social•307 days ago

I'll have to check out your proposal. Still, given their position on glyph variants (which applies to discrete characters too), I wonder what the justification was for including "insular" letters in the Latin Extended D block: Ꝺ, ꝺ, Ꝼ, ꝼ, Ᵹ, Ꞃ, ꞃ, Ꞅ, ꞅ, Ꞇ, ꞇ.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply