On Monday 22 April 2013 I wrote:
This will need first of all a new version of the font so as to have symbols
for the localizable sentence markup bubble brackets and ten localizable
digits for use solely within localizable sentence markup bubbles.
After sending that post I made the new
* Asmus Freytag [2013/4/22]:
On 4/22/2013 4:27 AM, Charlie Ruland ☘ wrote:
[...]
Please submit a formal proposal that can serve as a basis for further
discussion of the topic.
[...]
Mr. Overington is quite aware of what would be the inevitable outcome
of submitting an actual proposal,
Ruland ?
Lähetetty: 23. huhtikuuta 2013 9:24
Vastaanottaja: unicode@unicode.org
Aihe: Re: Encoding localizable sentences (was: RE: UTC Document Register Now
Public)
* Asmus Freytag [2013/4/22]:
On 4/22/2013 4:27 AM, Charlie Ruland ☘ wrote:
[...]
Please submit a formal proposal that can serve
On Monday 22 April 2013, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I'm afraid that any proposal submitted this way would just become the basis
for a rejection with prejudice.
Well, the rules could be changed. I feel that the existing position is not
suitable for the advances in ideas that
On Monday 22 April 2013, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I'm always suspicious if someone wants to discuss scope of the standard
before demonstrating a compelling case on the merits of wide-spread actual
use.
The reason that I want to discuss the scope is because there is
On Tuesday 23 April 2013, Charlie Ruland ☘ rul...@luckymail.com wrote:
Taken together the above sentences mean that he has to face the fact that
there is no “basis for further discussion of the topic.”
Well I knew and had just put up with the old situation and was researching on
other
There's also noather issue: your proposal now uses identifiers that will be
resolved in a registry database you are the only one to control. There are
other competing registries for storing images, logos, and so on.
Finally your registry does not exist for now, or nobody else than you uses
it. And
On 2013/04/23 18:01, William_J_G Overington wrote:
On Monday 22 April 2013, Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I'm always suspicious if someone wants to discuss scope of the standard before
demonstrating a compelling case on the merits of wide-spread actual use.
The reason that I
On Tuesday 23 April 2013, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
There's also noather issue: your proposal now uses identifiers that will be
resolved in a registry database you are the only one to control.
Not at all. The registry would be controlled by an International Standards
Do you realize the operating cost of any international standard comittee or
for the maintenance ans securization of an international registry ? Who
will pay ? You ? Unless there's a very productive and demonstrate need of
such a registry, using the existing domain name or URI schemes mechanism
On 4/23/2013 3:00 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Do you realize the operating cost of any international standard
comittee or for the maintenance ans securization of an international
registry ? Who will pay ?
Currently we all are paying by having interminable discussions of
half-baked ideas
On 4/23/2013 2:01 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
On Monday 22 April 2013, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I'm always suspicious if someone wants to discuss scope of the standard before
demonstrating a compelling case on the merits of wide-spread actual use.
The reason that I
On Saturday 20 April 2013, Erkki I Kolehmainen e...@iki.fi wrote:
I'm sorry to have to admit that I cannot follow at all your train of thought
on what would be the practical value of localizable sentences in any of the
forms that you are contemplating. In my mind, they would not appear to
* William_J_G Overington [2013/4/22]:
[...]
If the scope of Unicode becomes widened in this way, this will provide a basis
upon which those people who so choose may research and develop localizable
sentence technology with the knowledge that such research and development
could, if
[Charlie Ruland:]
The Unicode Consortium is prepared to encode all characters that can
be shown to be in actual use.
Are you sure there is a precedent for what is essentially markup for a
system of (alpha)numerical IDs?
Stephan
On 4/22/2013 4:27 AM, Charlie Ruland ☘ wrote:
* William_J_G Overington [2013/4/22]:
[...]
If the scope of Unicode becomes widened in this way, this will provide a basis
upon which those people who so choose may research and develop localizable
sentence technology with the knowledge that such
On 4/22/2013 12:35 PM, Stephan Stiller wrote:
[Charlie Ruland:]
The Unicode Consortium is prepared to encode all characters that can
be shown to be in actual use.
Are you sure there is a precedent for what is essentially markup for a
system of (alpha)numerical IDs?
You don't even have to
Some better proaches have been used with practical applications, on TRUE
languages supported by ACTIVE communities : it is sign-writing which
represent sign languages which are FAR richer than what is proposed. They
have a true grammar, a true syntax, they are versatile, with good links to
other
William
Your localizable sentences idea reminds me of telegraph companies
that used to have a number of common sentences that could be
transmitted in morse code by number. In India you could have telegrams
containing such sentences delivered in any of the major Indian
regional languages.
This
In India you could have telegrams
containing such sentences delivered in any of the major Indian
regional languages.
This was a good idea in the days of the low-bandwidth telegraph
And it was a domain-restricted application.
Stephan
On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Christopher Fynn wrote:
In India you could have telegrams
containing such sentences delivered in any of the major Indian
regional languages.
There is apparently a version of this still in use, seen in the List of
Standard Phrases for Greeting Telegrams at the
On Friday 19 April 2013, Whistler, Ken ken.whist...@sap.com wrote:
You are aware of Google Translate, for example, right?
Yes. I use it from time to time, mostly to translate into English: it is very
helpful.
If you input sentences such as those in your scenarios or the other examples,
: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org]
Puolesta William_J_G Overington
Lähetetty: 20. huhtikuuta 2013 12:39
Vastaanottaja: KenWhistler
Kopio: unicode@unicode.org; KenWhistler; wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
Aihe: Re: Encoding localizable sentences (was: RE: UTC Document Register
...@btinternet.com
Aihe: Re: Encoding localizable sentences (was: RE: UTC Document Register
Now Public)
On Friday 19 April 2013, Whistler, Ken ken.whist...@sap.com wrote:
You are aware of Google Translate, for example, right?
Yes. I use it from time to time, mostly to translate into English
On 2013-04-20 2:38 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
I am thinking that the fact that I am not a linguist and that I am implicitly
seeking the precision of mathematics and seeking provenance of a translation is
perhaps the explanation of why I am thinking that localizable sentences is the
way
I am wondering whether it would be a good idea for there to be a list of
numbered preset sentences that are an international standard and then if Google
chose to front end Google Translate with precise translations of that list of
sentences made by professional linguists who are native
However, now that I've got your hopes up on procedural grounds...
Getting on to the particulars:
I do have two particular reasons for asking.
2. My research.
There is a document entitled locse027_four_simulations.pdf available from
the following forum post.
Not perfect, perhaps, but perfectly comprehensible. And the application will
even
do a very decent job of text to speech for you.
and
The quality of the
translation for these kinds of applications has rapidly improved in recent years
Not that the ability of MT to deal with
On 2013年4月19日, at 下午1:52, Stephan Stiller stephan.stil...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd argue that the distance of the information content of such
low-quality translations to the information content conveyed by correct and
polished language is often tolerable. Grammar isn't that important for
29 matches
Mail list logo
