Re: Character set cluelessness

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:58:52 -0700

And just to be clear, I do agree that their documentation of the standards
usage, well, needs improvement. I'm just talking about the actual data, and
for that as a practical matter it is valuable to have both the native
language version(s) of a name, and a Latin equivalent.

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

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com> wrote:

> Eg, in http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/locode/gr.htm
>
> Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
> *
> *
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
> **
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 - 17:00:02 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 02 2012 - 17:00:03 CDT