Re: CLDR: Bad exemplar chars for some locales

From: Donald Z. Osborn (
Date: Thu Apr 06 2006 - 03:58:11 CST

  • Next message: Keutgen, Walter: "RE: CLDR: Bad exemplar chars for some locales"

    What is the general rule in this kind of situation? Another case is
    languages in
    Latin transcription that can have tone marks, but generally don't use
    them, and
    others that generally do but not necessarily, etc. The case is a bit
    complicated where precomposed accented characters can be used for ASCII base
    characters but don't exist for extended characters.

    It almost seems like there ought to be an "tone and vowel mark"
    category between
    the standard set and the auxiliary set. But then again maybe (1) the standard
    set does not have to do with frequency of usage (so points in Hebrew, accents
    in Bambara etc. should be there if they are part of the transcription system)
    and (2) I should look at the good old Effing Manual to clarify my
    of "auxiliary" (which I take to mean characters "not used" in the
    language that
    might be for borrowed and transcribed foreign terms).

    Don Osborn
    PanAfrican Localisation Project

    Quoting Simon Montagu <>:

    > Peter Edberg wrote:
    > > 3. Hebrew (he):
    > > - This currently includes points 05B0-05B9, 05BB-05BC, 05BD, 05BF,
    > 05C1-05C2, 05C4. Points are not required for writing modern Hebrew,
    > so these should not be in the standard set. Perhaps these should be
    > in an auxiliary set.
    > In modern Hebrew points are used in poetry, texts for children and
    > people learning Hebrew as a second language, and occasionally in any
    > text for disambiguation, e.g. in transcriptions of foreign words or
    > words which without points might be read in more than one way either
    > of which would fit the context.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 06 2006 - 04:11:58 CST