Re: Character set cluelessness

I tend to agree. What would be useful is to have one column for the city in
the local language (or more columns for multilingual cities), but it is
extremely useful to have an ASCII version as well.

Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Rosenne <jonathan.rosenne_at_gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jony****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] *On
> Behalf Of *john knightley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 6:35 PM
> *To:* Doug Ewell
> *Cc:* unicode_at_unicode.org; locode_at_unece.org
> *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. ****
>
> John****
>
> On 3 Oct 2012 00:26, "Doug Ewell" <doug_at_ewellic.org> 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.
>
> http://www.unece.org/cefact/locode/welcome.html
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
> http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­
>
>
> ****
>
Received on Tue Oct 02 2012 - 15:51:15 CDT