From: JFC Morfin (jefsey@jefsey.com)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2008 - 20:36:45 CDT
At 09:11 15/04/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:01:57AM +0200,
> JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote
> a message of 195 lines which said:
>
> > The center of the world is not the IETF but the 6.5 billions of
> > JFCs. [...] Respecting the ISO rule by necesity, when the English
> > speakers disrepect it by convenience. This explains why Unicode
> > seems better to you as an English speaker, thinker and writter, than
> > for me and a non-English speakers. The French pragmatic helped
> > reducing the English pragmatic. The French semantic helped adding to
> > the English semantic.
>
>Just for the record, there is only one JFC in France and all other
>French people involved in internationalisation use Unicode and not ISO
>10646 (one of the big reasons being that Unicode is available while
>10646 "may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form" - from the
>licencing text).
This may be a correct statement. Stephane is one of the few people in
France actively involved in internationalization; more informed ones
are involving themselves in the transition from internationalization
to multilingualisation.
Internationalization is a general concept: the extension of national
standards or vision to universal norms. In most of the cases this
concerns a specific issue debugged by a country (Fast Track) or a
leading industry influence (in our area the US software industry).
By nature internationalization can conflict with other languages,
cultures and interests. As such it has been superseded by the WSIS
(world submit on information society) which documents a multilingual
society and network, calling for a non-biased equal support of every
natural language.
Among others, MLTF have identified this as a technical challenge that
calls for a specific discipline: multilinguistics. While linguistics
considers languages in the linguistic diversity, multilinguistics
focuses on the practical support of diversity. For example, we
identify the Internet name space multilingualisation and language
tagging solutions as multilinguistic issues. Registry management
belonging to linguistics.
As an alternative to our multilinguistics understanding of ISO 3166,
an ISO NWIP was introduced by the British BSI in order to
"internationalize" it. A conciliation meeting between ISO, BSI,
AFNOR, ISO 3166/MA, ICANN and myself did not permit to reach a
consensus about a transition NWIP from internationalization to
multilinguisation. As a result the BSI "internationalization" NWIP
was defeated. Only UK, IE and (due to voting period extension) USA
supported it.
For the time being I try understand:
(1) how many different _semiotic_ codes do exist, how they relate,
how to document their general interoperability and build secure
interoperability solutions able to support the existing approach and
the transition the WSIS consensually called for.
(2) how these codes can be used to build a semantic addressing that
can be uniformly used throughout the digital convergence and the
semantic emergence.
In this convergence/emergence effort, I meet the same problem as at
the IETF (Langtags and IDNA). I basically identify it as the
disrespect of the ISO bi/trilingual paradigm (and I would like it to
be extended to a tri/quadrilingual paradigm in adding Chinese or
Japanese). This leads to a standards graduation (as in the Character
set area) :
1. ISO English Version standard,
2. ISO French Version with some translation issues and more metalinguistic,
3. a more US pragmatic industry oriented Version (as Unicode in the UCS case).
jfc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 15 2008 - 20:40:53 CDT