From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2008 - 17:54:32 CDT
On 4/14/2008 3:27 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> Dear Asmus,
> I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. Unless there is a JTC1
> supplement I did not considered, Annex E (normative) of ISO/IEC
> General Directives says :
> (E.3) "International Standards are published by the ISO and IEC in
> English and in French (and sometimes in multilingual editions also
> including Russian and other languages, expecially in case of
> terminology). These versions of a given International Standard are
> equivalent and each is regarded as being an original-language version.
> "It is advantageous for the technical content of a standard to be
> expressed both in English and in French from the outset of the
> drafting procedure, so that thise two versions will be studied,
> amended and adopted at the same time and their linguistic equivalence
> will be insurerd at all times (See also the ISO/IEC Directives, Part
> 2; 2001 4.5) - I suppose it is 4.3 from the copy of the document I
> have (?).
Well, whatever JTC1 decrees in its lofty spheres about this, the reality
on the ground is that the French text (of 10646 in particular) is an
after-the-fact translation, that, while presumably prepared with care,
is not subject to any rigorous review by the working group responsible
for 10646. It may aid in "comprehension" but for the reasons I mentioned
here and before, there are practical limits on how far you can rely on
it as a formal reference in fully the same manner as the original.
> Annex SP (normative) SP.2.3. accepts that texts are not prepared in
> parallel (however it notes the aiding comprehension issue).
> Obviously, this raises the question of Unicode being chosen as a
> reference by the IETF for RFC 4646 and IDNA. As you note it, Unicode
> has introduced average-English speaking user friendly solutions.
Yes, the additional information is provided as parallel (informative)
annotations (which will form part of a new combined nameslist between
10646 and Unicode, and which have already been translated into French as
far as they apply to French speakers, by the way) and also as separate,
independent publication UTN #24, "Sample American English Translation of
Unicode Names List", (which is not part of the Unicode Standard).
Neither of these causes any of the questions you are trying to raise.
> The problem is that these solutions are no part of ISO 10646 both versions
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2008 - 17:57:18 CDT