TrueType Fonts and Attachment Points

[Bill Reese]

Charles,

I figured this was an old idea.

It would be interesting to map attachment points and their placement.
Perhaps two "circles" of attachments points could be used - one circle
of 8 points at a location halfway between the outer circle and the
symbol's centroid that's rotated 22.5 degrees from the outer group of 8
symbols.  Then, of course, there'd be an attachment point for symbols in
a face that corresponds to the center of the face.   This could get
interesting ...  :-)

Which begs the question, if a symbol isn't "attached" then is it placed
at all?  That seems to lead to the idea of some symbols being
independent - without a need to either attach or have attachments to
other symbols - the index hand, for instance - which could also be
dependent, depending on context.  Other symbols, like arrows, could
always be dependent.   So that, when typing, you would need to place an
independent symbol first before typing it's dependent symbol and the
relationship would be infered that the dependent symbol is attached to
the independent symbol typed before.

Which attachment points are used could be minimized by rules that
establish location.  For instance, an dependent arrow that points up and
right would be attached by the points in it's lower left quadrant to a
point in the upper right quadrant of it's independent symbol.

Similarly, conjunctive symbols, like the one indicating that both hands
move at the same time, could be attached to the first independent symbol
placed (I'll call it the primary symbol) and the second independent
symbol, the secondary symbol, could be automatically attached at the
opposing attachment point of the conjunctive symbol.  In fact, since
most signs that involve simultaneous hand movements have the same
handshape for each hand, the secondary symbol may automatically be
chosen to be the same the primary symbol with an option to over-ride.

As I said ... this could get quite interesting ...  :-)
And I'm probably spinning wheels on something that's already been
thought out before.

Bill


Charles Butler wrote:

>Hey there Bill and Val,
>
>Regarding "attachment points".  I know that in typing
>SW DOS, you have a key that goes to 8 points around a
>given SW character.  If this were to go to 16 points
>instead, for example, in a slightly larger circle, or
>even at those shade points between 45 degrees (22.5
>degrees) it might, I say might be able to get "good
>enough to live by" SW vocabulary down.  Right now, in
>addition to the 8 points, you have your arrow keys to
>get specific hands or symbols overlapping exactly as
>you want them visually to appear.  With so many
>contact points on the face, and so many between hands
>and various rotations, the interlocking 16 for each
>character would make an interesting programming
>expansion that could, conceivably, make True Fonts
>adaptable.  If Chinese can do it, SW ought to be able
>to do so.
>
>Charles
>
>
>--- Bill Reese <wreese01 at TAMPABAY.RR.COM> wrote:
>
>
>>Val,
>>I did a search for TrueType font generation, just to
>>see what it
>>entails.  On the way, I came across an article on
>>Microsoft's site about
>>International Windows and how they developed the
>>ability to show
>>different language fonts on the same machine using
>>something they call
>>Uniscribe.  The article is very complex and the
>>subject matter is new to
>>me, but it was interesting that it sounded very
>>similar to some of the
>>papers I read from the Lisbon conference.  Here's
>>the link:
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.microsoft.com/typography/developers/uniscribe/default.htm
>
>
>>Also, in reading a bit further on the subject, I
>>came across the need in
>>some fonts to have what they call "attachment
>>points" for such things
>>like diacritical marks - which are usually either
>>above or below the
>>rest of the characters in the fonts.  That got me to
>>wondering if there
>>could be attachment points for SignWriting symbols.
>>If each symbol was
>>surrounded with 8 invisible attachment points, it
>>could, theoretically,
>>snap to one of the attachment points of an adjacent
>>symbol.
>>
>>At the moment, the symbol placement within the
>>character box is
>>restricted by the number of pixels that the box
>>represents on the
>>screen.  This allows us to put symbols in a
>>seemingly infinite number of
>>arrangements.  If we had attachment points instead,
>>while the number of
>>arrangements wouldn't be infinite, it may be enough
>>for the combinations
>>we need.  Perhaps 16 attachment points would be
>>needed, but you see the
>>concept behind it is to provide a way to logically
>>order the symbols in
>>their spatial relationship.   You might even be able
>>to infer a
>>relationship based on attachment points - that if a
>>symbol, say an
>>arrow, is attached to a hand symbol, then it means
>>that the hand is
>>what's moving.
>>
>>Just a couple thoughts,
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>Valerie Sutton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>When I was working with Unicode specialist Michael
>>>
>>>
>>Everson, years ago,
>>
>>
>>>Michael told me that there would be no problem to
>>>
>>>
>>place SignWriting
>>
>>
>>>into Unicode, but there were three issues...The
>>>
>>>
>>first is funding to
>>
>>
>>>develop all the TrueType fonts for the huge
>>>
>>>
>>symbolset...that is a big
>>
>>
>>>task and unfortunately the first obstacle. The
>>>
>>>
>>second is the politics
>>
>>
>>>with the world standards...That has already been
>>>
>>>
>>somewhat solved, since
>>
>>
>>>Michael has already gotten written acceptance for
>>>
>>>
>>a SignWriting Unicode
>>
>>
>>>standard from the ISO (an international
>>>
>>>
>>organization that sets world
>>
>>
>>>standards)...hopefully, even though it has been
>>>
>>>
>>several years now,
>>
>>
>>>since we received that, the door will still be
>>>
>>>
>>open when someone
>>
>>
>>>finally works officially on Unicode. Once the
>>>
>>>
>>first and second phases
>>
>>
>>>are finished, there is a third phase...The
>>>
>>>
>>programming of how the
>>
>>
>>>TrueType fonts would work, to make it possible to
>>>
>>>
>>type SignWriting with
>>
>>
>>>them as efficiently as we do in SignWriter
>>>
>>>
>>DOS...or maybe even better
>>
>>
>>>that SignWriter DOS. I know that most people do
>>>
>>>
>>not realize that we can
>>
>>
>>>type directly in SignWriting, but we can if you
>>>
>>>
>>know how to do it, and
>>
>>
>>>getting Unicode to function on that level will
>>>
>>>
>>need some programming. I
>>
>>
>>>believe that Guylhem's paper is about an idea for
>>>
>>>
>>Unicode
>>
>>
>>>implementation...and there are other ideas
>>>
>>>
>>too...People seem genuinely
>>
>>
>>>interested in the programming aspects in step
>>>
>>>
>>three...But it is
>>
>>
>>>completing step one that scares me ---There are a
>>>
>>>
>>lot of symbols to put
>>
>>
>>>into TrueType!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20040604/0409d096/attachment.htm>