| |
BGonline.org Forums
Computer-friendly Nactation methodology for variant/family symbols
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Computer-friendly nactation methodology for variant/family symbols (Matt Ryder)
Date: Saturday, 5 February 2011, at 1:35 a.m.
It's no doubt possible to find workarounds for all the headaches that such a system inevitably introduces, but why not simply circumvent all that by adding one teeny tiny extra character in certain extraordinary circumstances?
I thought that's exactly what I did -- showed you a way to add one "teeny tiny" character, just for purposes of computer translation in extraordinary circumstances. (And even though I have done that, you say you prefer a binary system with more characters. So, which is it that you really want?)
I'll re-demonstrate with a one-on-one columnar representation.
The left column (black typeface) shows the way that the letter is currently written or typed, in order of descending hierarchy.
The right column (red typeface) shows the computer designation when it would otherwise be unable to format. It is also the way you can write/type it for the computer if it is somehow incapable of deciphering (by scanner or other means) your italics, underlining or emboldenment.
H
h
H ..H3
h ..H4
H ..H5
h ..H6
H ..H7
h ..H8
H ..H9
h ..H0
H ..HA
h ..HB...etc.
(Optionally, you can match up the first two entries with H1 and H2, so that everything is a two-character representation always, though that seems like a waste of a character the 99+% of the time that you need only one.)
Hope that's clearer. (The red typeface is used here only for purposes of dramatic contrast; obviously the computer doesn't need to use red.)
There are many similar ways to organize a second-character system; this is just one example.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.