From: JP Blankert (thuis & PC based) (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2010 - 19:04:57 CST
Still see myself as pupil reading introduction chart of unicode, but I
am happy to join the discussion on the Russian: it is quite different
from Latin. Apart from 33 characters in Russian alphabet = more
characters and apart from quite a few characters that as English speaker
you clearly do not know, Latin and Russian indeed contain some similar
characters. But watch out. There are if I am correct 3 a's in the world,
in this email a (Latin) looks like a (Russian) but they are different.
So the Russian a is quite suited for a hierogplyph attack (I will try
ontslag.com, which is Dutch for dismissal.com, to see how search engines
react. With Russian a. Punycode is different of the word as total).
Similar example: Ukraine i - looks like ours, but you can't register it
on .rf (Russian Federation).
Experiment 1 year ago with *Reïntegratie.com*
being correct Dutch for reintegration, but being impossible as
domainname because SIDN.nl (supposed to be nic.nl) is very conservative
and does not even allow signs gave as result: in the beginning Google
appreciated and appreciated it....after a few months the hosted and
filled site 'sank'.(I borrowed the **ï*
*from Catalan, amidst Latin characters).
News about ss / sz to whom is interested: most Germans were alert
(ss-holders had priority to /ß)//, /so no/Fußbal/l for me, but only
experimental domain names IDNexpress.de and IDNexpre/ß.de. /It was a
mini-landrush on Nov. 16 2010, 10:00 German time onwards (Denic.de)
/Very busy with .rf auction now, in December I will put 2 different
sites on these ss and sz names so people can wonder at their screens to
see what is happening.
Above reaction was more out of domain names and practical experience
than chartUTFxyz - but definitely: different script.
On 18-11-2010 20:04, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 8:04 AM, Peter Constable wrote:
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>> On Behalf Of André Szabolcs Szelp
>>> AFAIR the reservations of WG2 concerning the encoding of Jangalif
>>> Latin Ь/ь as a new character were not in view of Cyrillic Ь/ь, but
>>> rather in view of its potential identity with the tone sign mentioned
>>> by you as well. It is a Latin letter adapted from the Cyrillic soft
>> There's another possible point of view: that it's a Cyrillic
>> character that, for a short period, people tried using as a Latin
>> character but that never stuck, and that it's completely adequate to
>> represent Janalif text in that orthography using the Cyrillic soft sign.
> When one language borrows a word from another, there are several
> stages of "foreignness", ranging from treating the foreign word as a
> short quotation in the original language to treating it as essentially
> fully native.
> Now words are very complex in behavior and usage compared to
> characters. You can check for pronunciation, spelling and adaptation
> to the host grammar to check which stage of adaptation a word has
> When a script borrows a letter from another, you are essentially
> limited in what evidence you can use to document objectively whether
> the borrowing has crossed over the script boundary and the character
> has become "native".
> With typographically closely related scripts, getting tell-tale
> typographical evidence is very difficult. After all, these scripts
> started out from the same root.
> So, you need some other criteria.
> You could individually compare orthographies and decide which ones are
> "important" enough (or "established" enough) to warrant support. Or
> you could try to distinguish between orthographies for general use
> withing the given language, vs. other systems of writing
> (transcriptions, say).
> But whatever you do, you should be consistent and take account of
> existing precedent.
> There are a number of characters encoded as nominally "Latin" in
> Unicode that are borrowings from other scripts, usually Greek.
> A discussion of the current issue should include explicit explanation
> of why these precedents apply or do not apply, and, in the latter
> case, why some precedents may be regarded as examples of past mistakes.
> By explicitly analyzing existing precedents, it should be possible to
> avoid the impression that the current discussion is focused on the
> relative merits of a particular orthography based on personal and
> possibly arbitrary opinions by the work group experts.
> If it can be shown that all other cases where such borrowings were
> accepted into Unicode are based on orthographies that are more
> permanent, more widespread or both, or where other technical or
> typographical reasons prevailed that are absent here, then it would
> make any decision on the current request seem a lot less arbitrary.
> I don't know where the right answer lies in the case of Janalif, or
> which point of view, in Peter's phrasing, would make the most sense,
> but having this discussion without clear understanding of the
> precedents will lead to inconsistent encoding.
> Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 9.0.869 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/3264 - datum van uitgifte: 11/18/10 08:37:00
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 18 2010 - 19:12:00 CST