[Apologies if you got this, but it seems to be bouncing and so I'm sending
it again.]
On 09/12/2000 10:00:34 AM "Christopher J. Fynn" wrote:
[I just got this today. Email's not supposed to take 9 days to arrive... ]
I think a clear distinction may need to be made between those languages
Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Last Friday was International Literacy Day here at LC. SIL was among
those distributing literature here. From it I gather their goal is to
define and implement writing systems for many presently unwritten
languages
"Christopher J. Fynn" wrote:
I think a clear distinction may need to be made between those languages which
are commonly written and those which are (largely) only spoken. Outside the
realm of specialised applications for linguists, most applications currently
only deal with written
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
"Christopher J. Fynn" wrote:
In short I favour inclusion of codes for written languages in the Ethnolouge
list which are currently missing in ISO 639 (and the requirement for a certain
number of publications does not seem too onerous) - but do not
I do not have the confidence which you do in the Ethnologue's taxonomy or
in its freedom from error, Peter. The 50+ document requirement for ISO
639-2 is not unreasonable. Languages should be proposed for inclusion in
ISO 639 wherever appropriate. Other languages can be proposed via RFC 1766.
If
Sorry if it appears "chauvinism", but it is not, that's really a question:
Michael Everson wrote:
Ar 16:40 -0800 2000-09-03, scríobh John Cowan:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alistair Vining wrote:
Except that the Oxford dictionaries (and hence many UK users) have gone over
to -ize spellings, so
Ar 16:40 -0800 2000-09-03, scríobh John Cowan:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alistair Vining wrote:
Except that the Oxford dictionaries (and hence many UK users) have gone over
to -ize spellings, so you have to learn to ignore the false negatives and
search for the false positives...
In this case it
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Michael Everson wrote:
Oxford notes that it is in imitation of French orthography.
Meaning the use of "-ise" everywhere, I suppose; a straight parse of
what you said would be "Oxford notes that Oxford is in imitation..."
which seems to contradict what you meant.
--
John
Ar 11:51 -0800 2000-09-02, scríobh John Cowan:
Its only real competitor is the SIL set, and an effort is underway to
incorporate it en masse (or nearly so) into the RFC 1766 registry.
I assure you that this will not happen. We have procedures and they must
be
followed, and dumping thousands of
Ar 09:38 -0500 2000-09-05, scríobh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, Michael, *something* has to happen. There are a significant number of
users for whom the status quo isn't adequate.
Come on, Peter. Which users are they and what languages do they need? Be
specific. Are they candidates for encoding in
On 09/05/2000 09:38:00 AM Michael Everson wrote:
Well, Michael, *something* has to happen. There are a significant number
of
users for whom the status quo isn't adequate.
Come on, Peter. Which users are they and what languages do they need? Be
specific.
The languages are all those listed in
ry languages are
international.
_ Marco
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: domenica 3 settembre 2000 22.04
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Same language, two locales
For completeness sake, I will mention the Windows behavior here:
[...]
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 08:11:02PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
POSIX locale names are also formed from 639-1 language codes and 3166-1
country codes. Unlike in RFC 1766, the elements are separated by an
underscore rather than a hyphen. POSIX uses this
Peter,
Thanks for your response.
But, the problems with UTR#7 making a normative reference to a
particular system for language identification are (a) that systems
get revised (RFC 1766 will become obsolete before long),
This is one reason I have suggested making reference to ISO standards
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Doug Ewell wrote:
This is one reason I have suggested making reference to ISO standards
in the past, rather than RFCs. When ISO standards get revised, they
retain the number and name of the earlier version, so documents that
reference those standards are *automatically*
But, the problems with UTR#7 making a normative reference to a
particular system for language identification are (a) that systems
get revised (RFC 1766 will become obsolete before long),
This is one reason I have suggested making reference to ISO standards
in the past, rather than RFCs.
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 04:56:23PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the Euro currency symbol. A separate "fr_FR_Euro" locale would be
fr_FR@EURO is the way Sun does it.
OK, now how does Sun represent my modified "en_US" locale with
2000-09-02 date
quot;Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Same language, two locales
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 04:56:23PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the Euro currency symbol. A separate "fr_FR_Euro" locale would
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
Note that Word 2000 will let you tag text with different languages and
assuming you have the spellcheckers install from the proofing tools with
properly recognize internationalization/localization in US English text
and internationalisation/localisation in UK
quot;Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: Same language, two locales
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
Note that Word 2000 will let you tag text with different languages and
assuming you have the spellcheckers install from the proofing t
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alistair Vining wrote:
Except that the Oxford dictionaries (and hence many UK users) have gone over
to -ize spellings, so you have to learn to ignore the false negatives and
search for the false positives...
In this case it is the Americans and the Oxonians who preserve
ot; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Same language, two locales (RE: Locale string for
/|/|ike Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I've gotten confused during this thread over the naming of
country codes, etc.
Ar 1 Sep 2000, ag 23:31 scríobh Michael (michka) Kaplan
fán ábhar "Re: Same language, two locales (RE:":
And then if you look at the Windows platform, the supported languages are
assigned a locale ID, a number that is documented in Platform SDK as
containing information abou
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 08:11:02PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
/|/|ike Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I've gotten confused during this thread over the naming of
country codes, etc. There are ISO specs, RFCs, POSIX specs (and
more?)... Is this information conveniently summarized
On 09/01/2000 11:11:02 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
[snip]
RFC 1766 is currently being revised to allow three-letter (639-2), as
well as two-letter (639-1), language codes. This will permit the use
of language tags for hundreds of less-common languages that have no two-
letter code. The revision
From: "Sean O Seaghdha" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this is now rather off-topic, but if some kind soul would like to
explain to me how to add the necessary NLS information to Windows NT
4/Win2000
off list, I would be very grateful. I have figured out how to add
languages
for proofing, so that
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 05:45:49AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Naturally, the revised version will not be called RFC 1766, but will be
assigned a new number. I don't know if UTR #7 will be updated to refer
to the new RFC when it is published (I think it should be).
I don't think UTR#7
Keld Jørn Simonsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard for two-letter language codes is ISO 639-1. There is
also an ISO 639-2 (actually, there are two variants) that specifies
three-letter language codes.
Well, ISO 639-1 does not exist, yet. It is rather ISO 639 that is
being used.
I
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The revision will also provide ways to use 3166-2 country-
subdivision codes and (draft) ISO 15924 script codes in language
tags.
I don't think there is a concensus on use of script codes.
Possibly not. I was reading a draft which may be changed
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 10:50:25AM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
the Euro currency symbol. A separate "fr_FR_Euro" locale would be
fr_FR@EURO is the way Sun does it.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http/ftp: dvdeug.net.dhis.org
It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever,
It
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have heard this claim before, and the strong impression I get (please
correct me if I am wrong, Peter) is that the writer really doesn't like
Plane 14 language tags and wants to discourage their use.
Not improbable. The Unicode Consortium invented
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 10:50:25AM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard for two-letter language codes is ISO 639-1. There is
also an ISO 639-2 (actually, there are two variants) that specifies
three-letter language codes.
Well, ISO 639-1
Keld Jørn Simonsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can always extend the POSIX syntax yourself.
This is good, because it *must* be extended to handle any set of
preferences for which the OS vendor did not predefine a locale.
Anyway the problem with the Euro is taken care of in DTR 14652.
And
Doug:
I don't think UTR#7 should be making any normative reference to any
system of language identifiers. Unicode is providing a set of
characters; it should be up to some other protocol to specify how
those will be used.
I have heard this claim before, and the strong impression I get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Cascading" language selection is a great thing, and we are probably moving
in that direction.
But it is probably pointless to standardize the hierarchy of languages,
because it is too much bound to the culture and preferences of each
individual.
E.g. you
Antoine Leca joked:
Neither you nor I would accept that our national language are tagged,
respectively, la-ital and la-fran... ;-)
Similarly, I believe Norwegians and Danes will not accept to
have their
present 2-letter codes replaced with cascaded ones in the form
"Norse"-n? or "Norse"-da
2000, ag 10:57 scríobh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fán ábhar "RE: Same language, two locales (RE:":
I have short topic and some source code on the website trying to depict
why this is not a simple problem: it's easy to parse the header and hard
to know what it means.
(http:/
/|/|ike Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I've gotten confused during this thread over the naming of
country codes, etc. There are ISO specs, RFCs, POSIX specs (and
more?)... Is this information conveniently summarized anywhere so
that I may enlighten myself?
Here's a convenient, if
Addison P. Phillips wrote:
This is a weakness of the locale model used on the Web and most UNIX
systems: the hierarchy is based on the ISO 639 language codes
and the ISO 3166 country codes. It doesn't cover such minutiae as
"inside-a-country" variation easily nor does it deal well with
In the end we get a bunch of hacks to make the system work (in this regard
Microsoft is no better: they have to create new LCIDs to capture this
complexity too). This isn't surprising, given the nature of languages and
cultures.
Differences in writing systems are much more problematic than the
Addison P. Phillips wrote:
Differences in writing systems are much more problematic than the
Norwegian example. The Simplified/Traditional Chinese thing
leaps to mind, of course, [...]
Right. I just notice that, in Unicode, this is not a display difference but
an encoding one: corresponding
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly, wouldn't it be plausible that some Norse people, in the absence
of a Nynorsk interface, prefer a foreign (but familiar) language like
English, rather than the domestic (but maybe not very well known) Bokmål?
AFAIK every Norwegian who
42 matches
Mail list logo
