From: Denis Jacquerye (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 22:30:29 CST
On 10/25/05, Samuel Thibault <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm not a specialist, but I can give some personal view.
> Michael Everson, le Tue 25 Oct 2005 15:55:46 +0100, a écrit :
> > ISO 15924 Blocks-4.0.0.txt
> > ancien italique alphabet italique
> they respectively mean "old italic" and "italic alphabet". The issue
> here is hence whether one needs to express "old".
> > bouhide bouhid
> bouhide seems more frenchish.
> > laotien lao
> laotien is probably more correct.
> > osmanais osmanya
> osmanais is most probably more correct.
> > runique runes
> runes is the correct word.
> > syllabaire autochtone canadien unifié syllabaires autochtones canadiens
> "unifié" means "unified". Is there a need to express "unified"? Else,
> the trailing 's'-es give a plural form. Is there a plural form in the
> original english name?
> As for accents differences, I'd say the version without accents is
> probably wrong :)
The recommanded orthography of 1990 allows both 'i' or 'u' with
circumflex to be substituted with 'i' or 'u' without when there is no
ambiguity. Both the old orthography and the 1990 one are correct but
of course the one without circumflex on i or u is recommanded.
This diffrence "bengalî", "bengali" is simply old vs 1990 orthography.
The French locale in CLDR itself contains this disagreement of orthography.
In http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/main/fr.xml we have "Iles
d'Åland" but "Îles Cocos".
Unicode people can't seem to agree whether to use the recommanded
orthography or not.
The recommanded orthography should be used.
See http://www.orthographe-recommandee.info/ (in French).
-- Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 22:31:57 CST