Re: are Unicode codes somehow specified in official national linguistic literature ? (worldwide)

From: Steve Summit (
Date: Sat Jun 03 2006 - 18:22:39 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: UTF-8 can be used for more than it is given credit ( Re: UTF-7 - is it dead? )"

    Cristian Secară wrote:
    > I like to know how are the linguistic rules in other countries versus
    > Unicode specifications. NOT technical standards, but academic books.
    > Specifically: here in Romania, there are two reference books, one that
    > treats (among other things) the Romanian alphabet...
    > The problem is that there is no "modern" approach in these books.
    > Characters and signs are visually represented...

    On the one hand it could be argued that, since these references
    have nothing to do with computer representation, there would be
    no reason for them to touch on any Unicode mappings or definitions.

    But on the other hand it could be argued that since computers are
    so ubiquitous today, virtually all text can be expected to be
    entered into computers, meaning that any precise reference on
    alphabet issues has an implicit responsibility to talk about
    character set mappings, and today the right mappings to discuss
    are unquestionably to Unicode.

    I don't know about national linguistic standards, but I have a
    suggestive example from a similar field. Years ago, I was doing
    some work with the IPA (the International Phonetic Alphabet), and
    I had to devise my own mapping tables between IPA and Unicode.
    Today, however, the documents describing IPA produced by the
    International Phonetic Association (the body which defines IPA)
    all include official, explicit cross-references to Unicode.

    Clearly it would be nice if the Linguistic Institute of the
    Romanian Academy could be persuaded to take the same approach.
    (But as to how to persuade them, I have no idea.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 03 2006 - 18:38:08 CDT