Posted by Philip Newton on 9:50 12/6/01
In reply to: How do you want that data? posted by Mark Rosenfelder on 12:46 12/5/01
I think I'd agree with Irgend Jemand and Christopher: HTML is probably more useful. And while the diacritics look nicer, the spelling is nearly always unambiguous (barring such things as "dechep" -- like the similar problem in Esperanto with "flughaveno"). And as a bonus, the ugly spelling is more searchable :)
At any rate, when I want to find something in the Word document, if the word contains a consonant with a diacritic, then I have to scroll ugh the document because I can't type it into the "Find" box easily (vowels are easy since the German keyboard driver has a dead-key combination for accents, ä ö ü are on the German keyboard, directly, and I can remember the character code for ë). So if I could find "shushchan" by typing in those letters, that'd help ;). (You'd have to think about whether to separate 's' and 'sh' as you currently do, or whether all words with 'sh' sort between 'sfutlelen' and 'siblec'.) At any rate, Ver2Eng and Eng2Ver are both more easily searchable than the Cadhinor/Cuêzi grammars, since that uses a font that my version of Word considers "symbols" rather than "text", so looking for "and", for example, won't find anything.
I'd probably still download the version to have it accessible more quickly, but the format probably wouldn't make that much difference. Plain text would be fine, even :)
OK, cool, everyone likes html so far.
Searching is fine for me, since Maraille is defined such that the special characters are easily entered with Mac keyboard shortcuts. For instance, c-hachek is entered by typing Option-c, and so on.
Unfortunately, Maraille under Windows is completely munged up by Fontographer-- the encoding makes no particular sense.