Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

John Burrows wrote:

>
> I today received a posting from another yahoo group containing a few
> lines of Cyrillic amid the English.
> This time it was correctly rendered, a change from a similar posting
> two weeks ago.
> The header gave the Content-Type as: text/plain; charset=UTF-8.
> It may be time to run a few more tests.
> BTW - using Apple Mail and Mac OSX now and two weeks ago.
> jb

It's been possible for quite a while, actually. I've been using it in
my signature for over a year successfully. Here are the headers of one
of my messages here from April 2004 ("From" header purposely mangled to
prevent SPAM):

From: "Ethan ethanl_30below_com" <nospam@...>
X-Yahoo-Profile: crookedcricker
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list shavian@yahoogroups.com; contact shavian-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list shavian@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:56:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [shavian] Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
Reply-To: shavian@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


There are a number of variables which can prevent UTF-8 from being
displayed or transmitted correctly. Yahoo groups don't filter UTF-8
from emails sent through their servers, so as long as you are sending
the correct data, it should go through.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Ethan wrote:

>There are a number of variables which can prevent UTF-8 from being
>displayed or transmitted correctly. Yahoo groups don't filter UTF-8
>from emails sent through their servers, so as long as you are sending
>the correct data, it should go through.
>
>
I should add, however, that Yahoo's web mail interface doesn't work (or
at least didn't last time I checked) with UTF-8, only with a few old
language-specific encodings. If you set your language to English, you
get iso8859-1. Best advice is to use your own email program to compose
group messages, or use a better webmail provider that supports
internationalization correctly. Okay, I see why people write "i18n"!

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Strangely enough, none of your Unicode is displaying correctly here, as
of your last two messages. The ones before that were fine, so I don't
know what happened.

I guess the bottom line is that Unicode support for Shavian (or
anything outside the Basic Multilingual Plane) is somewhat unreliable
at the moment. I'll continue using it for my signature; but until it's
generally supported, I'd suggest using the more compatible non-Unicode
solution for email. That's not to say that you shouldn't use Unicode
in your documents, though.

Then again, the sooner we can get away of the old mapping the better.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

On Jul 30, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Ethan wrote:

> Ethan wrote:
> I should add, however, that Yahoo's web mail interface doesn't work (or
> at least didn't last time I checked) with UTF-8, only with a few old
> language-specific encodings. If you set your language to English, you
> get iso8859-1. Best advice is to use your own email program to compose
> group messages, or use a better webmail provider that supports
> internationalization correctly. Okay, I see why people write "i18n"!
>
> --
> Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Joseph Spicer wrote:

> Strangely enough, none of your Unicode is displaying correctly here,
> as of your last two messages. The ones before that were fine, so I
> don't know what happened.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that Unicode support for Shavian (or
> anything outside the Basic Multilingual Plane) is somewhat unreliable
> at the moment. I'll continue using it for my signature; but until it's
> generally supported, I'd suggest using the more compatible non-Unicode
> solution for email. That's not to say that you shouldn't use Unicode
> in your documents, though.
>
> Then again, the sooner we can get away of the old mapping the better.
>
> Regards,
> Joseph Spicer
> ·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼
>
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Ethan wrote:
>
> Ethan wrote:
> I should add, however, that Yahoo's web mail interface doesn't
> work (or
> at least didn't last time I checked) with UTF-8, only with a few old
> language-specific encodings. If you set your language to English, you
> get iso8859-1. Best advice is to use your own email program to
> compose
> group messages, or use a better webmail provider that supports
> internationalization correctly. Okay, I see why people write "i18n"!
>
> --
> Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴
>
>
Check your email program's character encoding settings. Make sure you
are using "Auto detect", and that it includes UTF-8 in its
autodetection. My signature above looks like it's been processed using
ISO-8859-1 instead of UTF-8. You may even wish to set your email viewer
to use only UTF-8 all the time, and only use other encodings if you
specify.

Here is a scrambled signature:

Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

This is what I get if I set my email to ISO-8859-1 and then view one of my emails.

By the way, your email sig came through just fine, and I can see no difference in my last two messages.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Joseph Spicer wrote:

> I guess the bottom line is that Unicode support for Shavian (or
> anything outside the Basic Multilingual Plane) is somewhat unreliable
> at the moment. I'll continue using it for my signature; but until it's
> generally supported, I'd suggest using the more compatible non-Unicode
> solution for email. That's not to say that you shouldn't use Unicode
> in your documents, though.
>
> Then again, the sooner we can get away of the old mapping the better.
>
> Regards,
> Joseph Spicer
> ·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

It's the old "chicken and egg" situation. Nobody wants to use the new
system because it's new, or unreliable - but nobody wants to improve the
new system because it's not used that much.

The fact is, the non-Unicode "solution" does not work that well,
either. If someone doesn't happen to have the one font you specified on
their system, even if they have a ton of Shavian fonts, they will only
see roman text. Many people, in fact, have gotten used to using only
the roman text, so that they interpret, for example, F as 𐑲, and are in
fact learning something altogether different from Shavian!

The sooner we move over to Unicode, the better. I'm attempting to do my
part, by working on improving things, sending in bug reports on broken
Unicode in applications (for instance, newer versions of Mozilla, and
eventually Netscape, will include improved Shavian support because of
one such bug report), and creating fonts and keyboard maps for Linux, at
least, which I use. I do need to post some of these things on my
website, so people can go to one place and get info and resources for
making Shavian work better for them. You can currently find lots of
nothing at shavian.ravenscall.net, which should soon (as soon as I get a
chance to work on it) contain more than an error message!

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Ethan wrote:

> Check your email program's character encoding settings. Make sure you
> are using "Auto detect", and that it includes UTF-8 in its
> autodetection. My signature above looks like it's been processed using
> ISO-8859-1 instead of UTF-8. You may even wish to set your email
> viewer
> to use only UTF-8 all the time, and only use other encodings if you
> specify.

I made sure to check this before, and again now with the same results:
no matter what encoding I chose, it displays exactly the same thing. I
wonder if Apple Mail may be having a problem. Either way, your
signature is appearing as usual now. I can only assume that at some
point, for some unknown reason, those messages got processed
differently, maybe by Yahoo! or Gmail.

> Here is a scrambled signature:
>
> Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴
>
> This is what I get if I set my email to ISO-8859-1 and then view one
> of my emails.
>
> By the way, your email sig came through just fine, and I can see no
> difference in my last two messages.
>
> --
> Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

That looks consistent. Apple Mail has a "default" setting that just
displays emails in whatever encoding is specified in the header and
creates them with UTF-8, which is standard in Mac OS X. I haven't
noticed any problems with it so far, but I'll note this as a
possibility until I see any more strange things.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

Hi Joe

I found a very interesting site on Global English.
They suggest a working vocabulary of around 15,000
words.
Seems like a good starting poing for a Shavian Dictionary.
They provide a frequency list.
Here are a few of the lower frequency part of the 15,000 word list
so you can see just how inclusive it is.

1. foliage
2. patronising 202
3. solidly 202
4. tawny 202
5. tonal 202
6. tripartite 202
7. comprehensible 201
8. disgruntled 201
9. gingerly 201
10. heaving 201
11. illuminated 201
12. inspiring 201
13. resilient 201
14. spartan 201
15. warp 201
16. weakest 201
17. wrongs 201
18. alienated 200
19. amorphous 200
20. bibliographic 200
21. elicit 200
22. facilitated 200
23. frivolous 200
24. glimpses 200
25. inorganic 200
26. intentionally 200
27. lessen 200

How many can you clearly define?
Anyway please take a look at the article and let me know what you
think.
The lack of a full size Dictionary is holding back dessemination of
the Shavian Alphabet.

Regards, Paul V.

Oops, forgot to include site address?
Take a look at
http://www.audiencedialogue.org/english.html

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:
> Hi Joe
>
> I found a very interesting site on Global English.
> They suggest a working vocabulary of around 15,000
> words.
> Seems like a good starting poing for a Shavian Dictionary.
> They provide a frequency list.
> Here are a few of the lower frequency part of the 15,000 word list
> so you can see just how inclusive it is.
>
> 1. foliage
> 2. patronising 202
> 3. solidly 202
> 4. tawny 202
> 5. tonal 202
> 6. tripartite 202
> 7. comprehensible 201
> 8. disgruntled 201
> 9. gingerly 201
> 10. heaving 201
> 11. illuminated 201
> 12. inspiring 201
> 13. resilient 201
> 14. spartan 201
> 15. warp 201
> 16. weakest 201
> 17. wrongs 201
> 18. alienated 200
> 19. amorphous 200
> 20. bibliographic 200
> 21. elicit 200
> 22. facilitated 200
> 23. frivolous 200
> 24. glimpses 200
> 25. inorganic 200
> 26. intentionally 200
> 27. lessen 200
>
> How many can you clearly define?
> Anyway please take a look at the article and let me know what you
> think.
> The lack of a full size Dictionary is holding back dessemination of
> the Shavian Alphabet.
>
> Regards, Paul V.

Hello.

My name is David McCreedy and last year I created the "Gallery of
Unicode Fonts" at http://www.travelphrases.info/fonts.html

It highlights Unicode fonts for Windows and has samples of them
grouped by writing system, including Shavian.

You might find my Shavian font page
(http://www.travelphrases.info/gallery/Fonts_Shavian.html)
and Shavian test page
(http://www.travelphrases.info/gallery/Test_Shavian.html) useful.

I'm also looking for additional Shavian Unicode fonts.
Right now I have just four: Andagii, Code2001, ESL Gothic Unicode, and
MPH 2B Damase.

I see there's been discussion about mapping existing fonts to Unicode.
If that's done, and if the fonts are available for download somewhere,
I'd like to add them to my site.

Thank you,

-David

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "horndinkle3" <disposable3@m...>
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> My name is David McCreedy and last year I created the "Gallery of
> Unicode Fonts" at http://www.travelphrases.info/fonts.html
>
> It highlights Unicode fonts for Windows and has samples of them
> grouped by writing system, including Shavian.
>
> You might find my Shavian font page
> (http://www.travelphrases.info/gallery/Fonts_Shavian.html)
> and Shavian test page
> (http://www.travelphrases.info/gallery/Test_Shavian.html) useful.
>
> I'm also looking for additional Shavian Unicode fonts.
> Right now I have just four: Andagii, Code2001, ESL Gothic Unicode, and
> MPH 2B Damase.
>
> I see there's been discussion about mapping existing fonts to Unicode.
> If that's done, and if the fonts are available for download somewhere,
> I'd like to add them to my site.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -David
if you can teach me how to make a font, I wouldn't mind trying mine
hand thereat.