RE: Character set cluelessness

From: Jonathan Rosenne <>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 22:23:22 +0200

I don't agree with the criticism. These place name are there to be readable
by a wide audience, rather than writable by locals and specialists. They
require the lowest common denominator.




From: [] On
Behalf Of john knightley
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 6:35 PM
To: Doug Ewell
Subject: Re: Character set cluelessness


Sad to say this seems to be close to the norm for all to many large
organizations where if it isn't in the 1990's version of the Times Roman
font then it's out.


On 3 Oct 2012 00:26, "Doug Ewell" <> wrote:

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has released a
new version of UN/LOCODE, and their Secretariat Note document is just as
clueless as ever about character set usage in international standards:

"Place names in UN/LOCODE are given in their national language versions
as expressed in the Roman alphabet using the 26 characters of the
character set adopted for international trade data interchange, with
diacritic signs, when practicable (cf. Paragraph 3.2.2 [sic; should be
3.3.2] of the UN/LOCODE Manual). International ISO Standard character
sets are laid down in ISO 8859-1 (1987) and ISO10646-1 (1993). (The
standard United States character set (437), which conforms to these ISO
standards, is also widely used in trade data interchange)."

It's 2012. How does one get through to folks like this? I tried writing
to them a few years ago, but I don't think they were impressed by an
individual contribution.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell -
Received on Tue Oct 02 2012 - 15:26:41 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 02 2012 - 15:26:43 CDT