From: Sinnathurai Srivas (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 24 2006 - 15:20:14 CDT
Seeing the following in the mail below,
" The use of left/right in the character names (corresponding to
opening/closing in the earlier Unicode 1.0 names) are somewhat unfortunate
in this respect. (They are, of course, a side effect of the cultural bias
of the initial group of standardizers, but that's not the point here)."
I'm of the opinion that "No correcting errors pact" alias "Stability pact"
is only applied to less powerful language communities and not to
overpowering communities for fear of loosing wages. Is ISO justified in
----- Original Message -----
From: "Asmus Freytag" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Keutgen, Walter" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Otto Stolz" <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: apostrophes
> On 5/24/2006 9:45 AM, Keutgen, Walter wrote:
>> the situation is even worse. My impression is that the German quotation
>> marks will vary depending on the FONT. I want to write an answer in this
>> forum, but the more statements I see passing, the more I realize that
>> this requires a thorough verification of the whole discussion in this
>> forum and looking at books, as you did.
> To be useful, the CLDR requires detailed and in-depth knowledge of the
> facts, which only research can give you.
>> The result is that the distinction between glyph and character once again
>> is not so easy as that and having code points like 'opening quotation
>> mark' and 'closing quotation mark' is not an option, as language tagging
>> would be necessary for choosing the actual glyph. While this is indeed
>> the spirit of UNICODE, my observation, if true, endangers somehow the
> This is an oversimplification. Unicode does *not* encode the generic
> concept of opening and closing inner and outer quotes, but the specific
> characters that are used in various traditions. The use of left/right in
> the character names (corresponding to opening/closing in the earlier
> Unicode 1.0 names) are somewhat unfortunate in this respect. (They are,
> of course, a side effect of the cultural bias of the initial group of
> standardizers, but that's not the point here).
> A font that's imaging the double quote or >> for 2019 is simply
> Any data captured in CLDR must be in terms of coded characters and
>> There seems to be that 'problem' also in CLDR date and number formats.
>> Whilst I was too late for changing anything, I realized that in the
>> existing formats there are 'unexplainable' variations (in several
>> languages visited) with an added space or not. I believe it is only a
>> FONT effect i.e. the past contributors used some a proportional, some an
>> even-spaced font. I.e. specially in Arial which is a rather narrow font,
>> adding a space enhances readability, whereas in Courier the result looks
>> perhaps ridiculous to some tastes.
> If this is true, it's probably worth looking into.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 24 2006 - 15:33:52 CDT