I'm replying as requested to wikitech-l, but I haven't received the original message through this list yet, so you might need to resend it.
--- David Friedland david@nohat.net wrote:
My recommended solution is:
- Implement some kind of wiki markup for indicating IPA text in the wiki
source, ideally as part of the WikiTeX system.
- Mark up all IPA symbols on Wikipedia using the markup!
- Logged-in users can set their preference to Unicode IPA, WikiTeX TIPA
images, and/or (X-)SAMPA.
- This system would put <span style="font-family:..."> tags around
Unicode IPA in the HTML output so Windows IE users who have set their preference to Unicode will be able to see the symbols regardless of their browser's font setting.
This sounds like a nice solution (as long as their are user preferences as you suggest).
- What do do for anonymous users: should we do a browser detect and
serve a page with unicode IPA or WikiTeX-ed image of the IPA, depending on the browser, or just send WikiTeX images to all anonymous users? It is hard to guarantee via a browser detect that the user has the proper unicode fonts, although certainly for all Safari users, the Unicode will render correctly, because Mac OS X has fonts with unicode characters installed by default. We need to do a browser/platform survey to determine what combinations are likely to support Unicode IPA.
Well, the simplest would be to deliver X-SAMPA by default as this would require no guessing/scanning on our parts.
- Inline TeX renderings won't be in the same font and may not be
properly aligned with the surrounding text, and so may not be attractive.
This is particularly relevant to wikipedia (rather than, say, wiktionary) as most pronunciation guides will appear not only inline, but in the very first sentence. That's not the place we want to be messing up the formatting/line height. Also, TeX outputs as a png, right? We should consider those who surf with images switched off. Since linguists have gone to the bother of translating the IPA into ascii X-SAMPA, we should consider this as a default for anons as it has maximum cross-browser compatability.
I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the symbols off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for that reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
If we're going to be encouraging the use of pronunciation guides, perhaps it would be best to create seperate guides to the IPA, SAMPA etc, which are designed to be linked from articles and help the reader decode the guide as quickly as possible. We might also need to do the same for editors, to help them write in SAMPA/the IPA in order to produce these guides in the first place. And I've been wondering if the string of symbols itself should be the link: (/[[SAMPA chart for English|"hE.l@U w3:ld]]/) for the sake of tidiness?
Fabi.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
fabiform fabiform_wikipedian@yahoo.com writes:
I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the symbols off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for that reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
All printed dictionary I am own use the IPA. Maybe, online ditionaries are different? If yes, they might be different because editor don't know how to enter IPA symbols.
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
Supporting old browser is nice as long as the rest does not suffer because of such a support.
On Apr 3, 2004, at 18:55, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
fabiform fabiform_wikipedian@yahoo.com writes:
I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the symbols off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for that reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
All printed dictionary I am own use the IPA. Maybe, online ditionaries are different? If yes, they might be different because editor don't know how to enter IPA symbols.
IPA seems to be fairly uncommon in monolingual English-language dictionaries, which tend to use their own idiosyncratic systems. My bilingual dictionaries are pretty much all IPA, though.
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
SAMPA is just an ASCIIfied IPA. It's a crutch for the ancient days of crappy uninternationalized computers which are coming to an end.
I can't say SAMPA is any friendlier to an unfamiliar reader than IPA, it's just easier to type.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2004, at 18:55, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
fabiform fabiform_wikipedian@yahoo.com writes:
I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the symbols off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for that reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
What I meant by this was that at least all the symbols used in SAMPA are recognisable. Like in the IPA you have the upsidedown e (schwa), or the E which is like a rotated 3, or the long s. These can be off-putting. It's true that X-SAMPA is just as complicated though (in fact more so, it has a few extra symbols).
All printed dictionary I am own use the IPA. Maybe, online ditionaries are different? If yes, they might be different because editor don't know how to enter IPA symbols.
IPA seems to be fairly uncommon in monolingual English-language dictionaries, which tend to use their own idiosyncratic systems. My bilingual dictionaries are pretty much all IPA, though.
I don't own any printed dictionaries which use it. None of my printed English dictionaries even offer pronunciation guides for words they assume you know how to pronounce. Even my bilingual French/English and monolingual French dictionaries don't use the IPA, although at first glance they appear to (they've changed at least one symbol). So, the full OED on CD is the only dictionary I own which actually uses it (much to my annoyance, I wish they all would).
Fabi.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
fabiform wrote:
What I meant by this was that at least all the symbols used in SAMPA are recognisable. Like in the IPA you have the upsidedown e (schwa), or the E which is like a rotated 3, or the long s. These can be off-putting.
This makes no sense to me. Whether it's an ɛ (rotated 3) or an "{", you still have to learn what it means. In fact, having symbols that already have a different meaning may be even more off-putting. Especially when you have a "{" without a matching "}"… :-p At least IPA uses letter-like symbols, so you can assume that things that look like an s (s, ʃ, ʂ) have a pronunciation somewhere close to s. Even moreso with vowels.
Timwi
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
fabiform fabiform_wikipedian@yahoo.com writes:
I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the symbols off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for that reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
All printed dictionary I am own use the IPA. Maybe, online ditionaries are different? If yes, they might be different because editor don't know how to enter IPA symbols.
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
I also find many of its usages to be counterintuitive. The advantage of the "unusual" symbols is that the reader does not have preconceptions about what they mean.
Ec
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
I also find many of its usages to be counterintuitive. The advantage of the "unusual" symbols is that the reader does not have preconceptions about what they mean.
Ec
That's not true of SAMPA or the IPA. For example they both use j for a y sound (as in "yes") and y for a oo vowel sound (as in French "tu"). Also, SAMPA uses symbols like @{}&123456789 etc, and you can't say you have preconceived ideas of how to pronounce those. :)
But I feel like we're wandering further and futher off-topic, so I'll stop there.
By the way, arial unicode ms is on sourceforge, so I finally have a decent font which can handle the IPA. All my previous comments about SAMPA having maximum cross-browser compatability still stand though.
Fabi.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
fabiform wrote:
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
I also find many of its usages to be counterintuitive. The advantage of the "unusual" symbols is that the reader does not have preconceptions about what they mean.
Ec
That's not true of SAMPA or the IPA. For example they both use j for a y sound (as in "yes") and y for a oo vowel sound (as in French "tu"). Also, SAMPA uses symbols like @{}&123456789 etc, and you can't say you have preconceived ideas of how to pronounce those. :)
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I would be inclined to pronounce "@" as in "at" thus "cat" becomes /k@/ ;-)
Ec
fabiform wrote:
This SAMPA looks very ugly to me and I have never learnt it.
I also find many of its usages to be counterintuitive. The advantage of the "unusual" symbols is that the reader does not have preconceptions about what they mean.
That's not true of SAMPA or the IPA. For example they both use j for a y sound (as in "yes") and y for a oo vowel sound (as in French "tu"). Also, SAMPA uses symbols like @{}&123456789 etc, and you can't say you have preconceived ideas of how to pronounce those. :)
I don't know about others, but I have the preconceptions that (a) digits have numerical values and nothing to do with pronunciations; (b) curly brackets usually occur in matching pairs, and serve to parenthesise other semantic symbols rather than being a semantic symbol itself.
I also don't like how these ASCII-IPA systems are completely backwards and outdated, but that's POV.
Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org