From: Don Osborn (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2006 - 14:52:20 CST
Quick comments (not much to add to the good info already put forth):
> >LO> Yes, the fonts are an issue but what about the OS?
RK> I still think this issue is not a problem since the people who are
> going to be reading/writing in the language will be using a computer
> set up for that language.
> I do not have the luxury of telling my translators how to set up their
> computer. I am not fluent in all of the languages that my translators
> are so I have to trust that each translator knows how to use their
> machine in their chosen target and source languages. Personally, I
> don't think that is a great leap of faith on my part. In addition, I do
> not have the resources to buy a new laptop for each of the five hundred
> translators who have registered on my site, if I am not mistaken and
> that is what you are suggesting.
1) Some people working with diverse languages (thinking here of some
academic linguists) who have found comfortable solutions in the past
involving non-Unicode fonts may be reluctant to change. These are probably
fewer by the day, and I imagine that anyone who has been exchanging text
widely in languages with extended Latin or non-Latin characters will have
seen the advantage of working in Unicode.
2) Old operating systems and software might be a hobble. I just recently on
another list saw questions re the apparent inability in MS Word 2003 and
earlier versions to save words with extended Latin characters in
dictionaries for spellchecks. (MS Word 2007 beta and recent OOo Writer
versions are not so limited). Not sure if such would have discouraged anyone
with older systems from using Unicode fonts in their work.
3) FWIW, the Linguist List http://www.linguistlist.org/ switched to Unicode
(UTF-8) on its site a few years ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 19 2006 - 14:58:57 CST