On Nov 2, 2025, at 10:57, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2 Nov 2025, at 10:50, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >>> I think ASCII-only (and perhaps English translation) is really what we're >>> looking for. >> >> Absolutely not. >> >> Latin script is pretty much readable to anyone who can read English >> documents. >> Those who have trouble ingesting Patrik Faltström or Jürgen Schönwälder can >> speak up. >> I don’t think either would want to give you ASCII transliterations, even if >> they know people won’t pronounce the Latin right (but that’s true of ASCII >> French names as well). > > So it sounds like you are suggesting something different: If the (personal or > company) name is entirely Latin characters, then no alternate form needs to > be provided, but if it's non-Latin characters, then an (ASCII or Latin?) > alternate does need to be provided. Did I get that right.
Exactly. Latin is the common base that everyone is supposed to understand (or at least tolerate). >> (I don’t think this is a policy issue.) > > That is an orthogonal, but valid, issue. I (both with and without a chair > hat) am ambivalent on this point. I think the policy needs to be that names are presented in a way that useful to people who are expected to read this. (Those people usually can read ASCII and at least tolerate Latin, but that already is an implementation of the policy; e.g., I’d probably appreciate Latin script without Ɯ or ʘ, but there might not be useful ASCII for that either.) Grüße, Carsten -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
