Talk:Phonetic symbols in Unicode

Lots of Non-Displayed Characters

Whats the point of creating this chart if you can't display the characters ? Just to see hex column or rows? Even Firefox cannot show the hex 02EA~1D2B, 1D66~1DBF (except very few) ! Until most browsers supports or capable of display all those characters, a graphical representation is necessary, through picture/graphic file(s). Thanks. ~ Tarikash 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

that's unrelated to which browser you are using. You have to have unicode fonts installed. I am using Firefox and most characters render properly for me. Of course you are free to add graphics, and to add a list with an entry for each character (name, purpose, etc.), along the lines of Miscellaneous Symbols/Letterlike Symbols. If you just want to see what the character should look like, you may also click on the external link (unicode.org), where you get pdf files of the ranges. But by all means, do add the graphical representation. I have no motivation to do that, because I see the characters already. dab (ᛏ) 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modification, installing font(s), or by changing default setup ... many things can be achieved, but, normally (default setup) cannot be seen. (i thought) we are trying our best to make pages/things working/displayable, with minimum or no extra modification, for the average users. Anyway, background color approach is very nice, easily distinguishable character categories, great. Editing individual graphics for each char takes up too much time, but i'll try that in future. But adding character entity name should be little easier. ~ Tarikash 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To use one of the available Unicode fonts to display the Unicode special characters, we need to specify the class="Unicode" in the table's TR tag (or, in each TD tag, but using in each TR is easier than in using in each TD), for wiki table code, we need to specify that after the "|-" (like |- class="Unicode"). Template code {{Unicode|char}} , <span class="Unicode"> ... </span>, etc for each character can also be used. I've updated few articles already with this class, and looks like few more characters are showing up than before. Thanks. ~ Tarikash 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

well, I am glad you know about {{unicode}}: note that it is just a temporary thing, it may help certain browsers to display things, but in the long run (say, if you wait for another year or so), most browsers should be able to render all this out-of-the-box. As I say above, you are welcome to add the {{unicode}}, of course, as well as other information. dab (ᛏ) 22:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until most browsers support these by default without any modification, we should still specify and use these, it is only a matter of one bot and may be an hour to remove all these codes, when not needed/necessary any more, am i right? so why should we make things disfunctional at this moment, and wait for one year to work? by letting the chart/symbols displayable for one year, we will help many to see it, and understand it better, thus further progress of Unicode. ~ Tarikash 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Semantic Phonemes"

The criticism related to "semantic phonemes" added by User:Indexheavy appears to be based on a number of misunderstandings, in particular surrounding the differences between glyphs, characters and referents (signifiés, viz. phonemes etc.) of characters. The topic it appears to address is the canonical names of some "IPA Extensions" characters. Since the Unicode range itself is called "IPA extensions", it somehow stands to reason that the character called "LATIN LETTER BILABIAL CLICK" is really the IPA symbol for a bilabial click, since there is really no Latin letter for a bilabial click. Yes, the character names are often not very happy choices. This points to a lack of professionality or consistence sadly often observed in the Unicode standard, however, the character names are merely convention anyway, and it is difficult to follow why they should be analysed depending on whether they describe a glyph shape or not, precisely because they are just a rather clumsily chosen convention. I suggest it is enough to just list the names and be done. If there is notable criticism related to the naming of the IPA characters, we should by all means cite it, but as it was, this discussion of "Semantic Phonemes" was imply "original research". dab (𒁳) 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the section. It wasn't meant so much as a critique as an aid in understanding the so often cited difference between glyphs and semantic characters. The phonetic characters serve as an excellent example where many reader will be able to graasp the difference. Moreover, I disagree that the names of the characters are merely convention. The code point means nothing to authors. All that remains to provide guidance on the use of the character are the glyph (which could vary widely from font to font) and the character names (along with script and block that are usually reflected in the names). The example you give of the bilabial click is an example of a semantic character name (and I do no think its an unfortunate name). Anyway, I'm going to restore the section. Perhaps some discussion here will help us understand what needs to be changed to make the writing more clearly convey what I wanted to convey (which wasn't all a critique). Indexheavy 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]