Duplicated punctuation symbols

[Jonathan Duncan]

On 5/30/2014 10:13 PM, Stephen E Slevinski Jr wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>> The valid rotations are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 so there has to be something 
>> there even though it doesn't bring anything meaningful to the 
>> alfabet.   Maybe instead of trying to make each base symbol and 
>> complete rectangle of fills and rotations (or matrix) of symbol but 
>> rather just have table with the ones that are valid.  We have to look 
>> up the valid fills and valid rotations per base symbol anyways.  So 
>> I'm not seing the advantage here. 
> Each base symbol has an 8-bit number for the valid fills and a 16-bit 
> number for the valid rotations.  So each base symbol needs 3-bytes to 
> determine validity.
>
> Here is a table from draft-slevinski-signwriting-text that deals with 
> validity in the ISWA 2010.
> http://signpuddle.net/download/draft-slevinski-signwriting-text-03.html#rfc.appendix.B.5
>
> Sum 	Binary 	Set
> 1 	100000 	{1}
> 2 	010000 	{2}
> 3 	110000 	{1, 2}
> 7 	111000 	{1, 2, 3}
> 15 	111100 	{1, 2, 3, 4}
> 31 	111110 	{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
> 63 	111111 	{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
> 187 	11011101 	{1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8}
> 255 	11111111 	{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}
> 511 	1111111110000000 	{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}
> 48059 	1101110111011101 	{1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16}
> 65535 	1111111111111111 	{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
> 14, 15, 16}
>
>
>
> For the punctuation in question, it has valid fills of 1 thru 4 ( sum 
> value of 15) and it has valid rotations of 1 thru 8 (sum value of 
> 255).  So to send the information for the base symbol we would need 
> S387,15,255.  For any symbol key, we can use the associated fill and 
> rotation numbers to determine if the key is valid.
>
>
>> Maybe instead of trying to make each base symbol and complete 
>> rectangle of fills and rotations (or matrix) of symbol but rather 
>> just have table with the ones that are valid.  We have to look up the 
>> valid fills and valid rotations per base symbol anyways.  So I'm not 
>> seing the advantage here. 
> The advantage is that we do not need to have a bit for each and every 
> cell.  With 6 fills and 16 columns, we would need a 96-bit number 
> which is 12-bytes.  So to send the information for the base symbol we 
> would need S387,71777214294589695 or we could use 6 16-bit numbers 
> which would be S387,255,255,255,255,0,0
>
> Setting each individual cell would require 4 times as much data per 
> base symbol.  I chose the smaller representation because I was trying 
> to reduce the size as much as possible.
Thanks for explaining why just writing the valid fills and valid 
rotations is so much more efficient than a validation bit for each 
possible character.

Regards,
Jonathan
>
> Regards,
> -Steve
> ________________________________________________
>
> SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
>
> Valerie Sutton SignWriting List moderator sutton at signwriting.org
>
> Post Messages to the SignWriting List: sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
>
> SignWriting List Archives & Home Page 
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist
>
> Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages 
> http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1
>

-- 

email: duncanjonathan at yahoo.ca <mailto:duncanjonathan at yahoo.ca>
joyoduncan at gmail.com <mailto:joyoduncan at gmail.com>
Cel Honduras: (504)3141-1171
Tel USA: (347)875-8442
Skype: yojoduncan

SignWriter Studio <http://www.signwriterstudio.com/>


________________________________________________


SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION

Valerie Sutton
SignWriting List moderator
sutton at signwriting.org

Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu

SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist

Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
http://listserv.valenciacollege.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SW-L&A=1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20140602/57420ddc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bdidgbef.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20140602/57420ddc/attachment.png>