Re: ISO 15924 and differences in French names of scripts

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:33:03 CST

  • Next message: Denis Jacquerye: "Re: ISO 15924 and differences in French names of scripts"

    > Unicode people can't seem to agree whether to use the recommanded
    > orthography or not.

    We received a bug report on *'Sun Oct 23 11:09:17 2005'
    (http://dev.icu-project.org/cgi-bin/locale-bugs?findid=901) that *"Iles
    d’Åland" (one code) uses a different style than the others. This is
    probably due to the fact that AX was very recently encoded, and the
    translator used the newer orthography for that name. Clearly there
    should be consistency among the names, but CLDR goes through a process
    of design, data collection, vetting, and then release
    (http://www.unicode.org/cldr/), with the next release expected at the
    end of next March. Simply because a bug is not fixed and released within
    3 days, no matter how vital it is, doesn't mean that "Unicode people
    can't seem to agree whether to use...".

    Mark

    BTW, There appear to be plenty of post-1990 instances of Îles in
    customary usage. For example, at lemonde.fr, there are
    *190 éléments* publiés "*depuis un mois*" avec le(s) mot(s) ou
    expression(s) "*Îles*" dans "*tout l'élément*" et classés par
    "*pertinence*".

    Denis Jacquerye wrote:

    >On 10/25/05, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>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 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 09:34:51 CST