From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 12:43:38 EDT
On 11/07/2003 08:51, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>On Friday, July 11, 2003 3:50 PM, Peter Kirk <email@example.com> wrote:
>>So I hope that what is fixed by Unicode is the name not
>>of two languages but of an extensible family of scripts.
>I think you speak about family of languages?
Not really. A set of languages, but they are not all related in any way,
and many of them have more than one script or alphabet so this is not
really a property of the languages. Perhaps "set of alphabets" would be
a better way to put it.
>Good luck with ISO language codes which does not even
>define them, and contain many duplicate codes even in
>the Alpha-2 space (he/iw, in/id), or unprecize codes
>matching sometimes very imprecize families of languages
>overlapping other language codes...
>Until it is demonstrated that a language needs such fix
>in Unicode support tables, ...
If necessary I can collect some data to demonstrate this, at least for
>... it's best to just say that these
>fixes are needed for some recognized language codes and
>that applications are allowed to add their own "fixes" or
>language tailorings, and that the existing language
>tailorings in Unicode databases are just non-normative
Agreed. But does Unicode actually treat them as non-normative samples?
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 13:33:57 EDT