Re: "French+" support by Unicode

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Sat Apr 12 2008 - 13:24:58 CDT

  • Next message: Aleksander Morgado: "Error in context specification for Casing"

    On 4/11/2008 10:43 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
    > Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:
    >> Thank you for that comprehensive explication, Kenneth, which amounts
    >> to saying, if I understand you correctly, that it would have been
    >> more correct for me to say "ISO/IEC 10646 is an international
    >> standard published in at least two independent languages, but the
    >> corresponding Unicode standard is a commercial standard published
    >> only in US (Anglo-American) English", (which, I trust, better answers
    >> the query someone else raised concerning bilingualism in the matter
    >> of publishing standards).
    > I don't think it amounts to that at all.
    > Marion's second version corrects the error of projecting the
    > bilingualism of ISO/IEC 10646 onto all ISO standards, but does nothing
    > to address the misleading pseudo-contrast between "international
    > standard" and "commercial standard" -- as though a standard
    > promulgated by an industry consortium cannot be international in nature.
    It also continues to wrongly imply that the French version of 10646 is
    in any way verified or approved by the working group that maintains
    10646. It's pure and simple an after-the-fact translation. While it is
    true that the translation is published through official channels, this
    does not mean that there has been a formal verification of its contents
    as rigorous as the review and balloting of the original version. I'm
    sure the translators did a good job, but in any doubt about a fine point
    of the specification, you need to refer to the English version.

    Incidentally, the same translators have provided a translation of the
    character names and annotations for the Unicode standard, which was last
    brought up-to-date for Unicode 5.0.

    > Additionally, if it is really necessary to point out that the Unicode
    > Standard is written in "US (Anglo-American) English," I don't see why
    > the shorter but equivalent term "US English" wouldn't be preferable.
    > --
    > Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
    > ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 13:27:26 CDT