Re: Character set cluelessness

From: Martin J. Dürst <>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:34:06 +0900

So in order to get something going here, why doesn't Doug draft a letter
to these guys (possibly based on the one from a few years ago) and then
Mark sends it off in his position at Unicode, which hopefully will
impress them more than just a personal contribution.

Being upset in this list (which I'm too, of course) doesn't change anything.

Regards, Martin.

On 2012/10/03 6:15, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Mark Davis 🍕<mark at macchiato dot 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.
> They have two name fields, one ("Name") for the name transliterated into
> Latin, and a second ("NameWoDiacritics") which is an ASCII-smashed
> version of the first. Again, that's fine as long as I am free to ignore
> the ASCII version. They don't attempt to represent names in non-Latin
> scripts, which is not my beef here.
> There are many names in the "Name" (i.e. "beyond ASCII") field that
> include characters beyond 8859-1, such as œ and ̆z, and certainly many
> beyond CP437. This is a good thing (although there are some errors, not
> as many as in past years), but they need to fix their documentation to
> reflect what they actually do, and not make these irrelevant,
> misleading, and/or inaccurate references to 437 and to a 19-year-old
> version of 10646.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
> | @DougEwell&shy;
Received on Tue Oct 02 2012 - 19:38:46 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 02 2012 - 19:38:52 CDT