Re: Translating the standard

[Marcel Schneider via Unicode]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:48:51 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote:

On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:

It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French 
standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those 
national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions 
of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 
version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their 
national members.


There is a way to transpose international standards to national standards, but 
they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN 
for European Norm.

A./



2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :


On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote:


Time to correct some facts.
The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate 
effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. 
...


Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got 
Andrew’s point, too.


Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC 
subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard.

A./
 





Thanks for correction. And I confess and apologize that on Patrick’s French 
Unicode 5.0 Code Charts page (
http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm
), there is no instance of "version", although the item is referred to as "ISO 
10646:2003 (F)", from which it can ordinarily be inferred that "ISO" did back 
the project and that it is considered as the French version of the standard.
 
I wasn’t aware that this kind of parsing the facts is somewhat informal and 
shouldn’t be handled on mailing lists without a caveat. 
 
That said, the French transposition of ISO/IEC 10646 was not carried out as 
just sort of a joint venture of Canada and France (which btw has stepped out, 
leaving Québec alone supporting the cost of future editions! Really ugly), 
given that it got feedback from numerous countries, part of which was written 
in French, and went through a heavy ballot process. Thus, getting it changed is 
not easy since it was approved by the time, and any change requests should be 
documented and are primarily damageable as threatening stability. Name changes 
affecting rare characters prove to be feasible, while on the other hand, 
syncing the French name of U+202F with common practice and TUS is obviously 
more complicated, which in turn compromises usability in UIs, where we’re 
therefore likely to use descriptors i.e. altered names for roughly half of the 
characters bearing a specific name. Somehow the same rationale as for UTN #24 
but somewhat less apposite given that the French transposition is not 
constrained by stability policies.
 
Best regards,
 
Marcel
 

Re: Translating the standard

[Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode]

On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and 
French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except 
that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in 
sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that 
this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, 
supported and sponsored by some of their national members.


There is a way to transpose international standards to national 
standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or 
DIN for German or EN for European Norm.


A./


2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode 
>:


On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote:

Time to correct some facts.
The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate 
effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper.
...

Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve 
got Andrew’s point, too.

Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper
ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC
standard.

A./

Re: Unicode 11.0 and 12.0 Cover Design Art

[John H. Jenkins via Unicode]

Maybe we should just throw in the towel and put "DON'T PANIC" on the cover in 
big, friendly letters. 

Re: Translating the standard

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French
standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those
national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with
evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a
version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and
sponsored by some of their national members.

2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :

> On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote:
>
> Time to correct some facts.
> The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate 
> effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper.
> ...
>
> Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got 
> Andrew’s point, too.
>
> Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC
> subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard.
>
> A./
>
>
>

Re: Translating the standard

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider
  via Unicode wrote:


  On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote:

  
Time to correct some facts.
The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. 
...

  
  Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too.


Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper
ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC
standard.

A./




  

RE: Translating the standard

[Marcel Schneider via Unicode]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote:
> 
> Time to correct some facts.
> The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate 
> effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. 
> National bodies are always welcome to try to transpose and translate an ISO 
> standard. But unless this is done by the ISO Sub-committee
> (SC2 here) itself, this is not a long-term solution. This was almost 15 years 
> ago. I should know, I have been project editor for 10646 since 
> October 2000 (I started as project editor in 1997 for part-2, and been 
> involved in both Unicode and SC2 since 1990).

Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got 
Andrew’s point, too.

> 
> Now to some alternative facts:
> >Since ISO has made of standards a business, all prior versions are removed 
> >from the internet, 
> >so that they donʼt show up even in that list (which Iʼd used to grab a free 
> >copy, just to check
> > the differences). Because if they had public archives of the free 
> > standards, not having any 
> >for the pay standards would stand out even more.
> >This is why if you need an older version for reference, you need to find a 
> >good soul in
> > the organization, who will be so kind to make a copy for you in the 
> > archives at the
> > headquarters.
> 
> OK, yes, the old versions are removed from the ISO site. Andrew has probably 
> easier access to older versions than you through BSI.
> He has been involved directly in SC2 work for many years. The 2003 version is 
> completely irrelevant now anyway and again was not
> done by the SC, there was never a project editor for a French version of 
> 10646.

Call him whatever, how can a project thrive without a head?

I think relevance is not the only criterium in evaluating a translation. The 
most important would probably 
be usefulness. Older versions are an appropriate means to get in touch with 
Unicode, as discussed when 
some old core specs were proposed on this list.

> 
> >The last published French version of ISO/IEC 10646 — to which you 
> >contributed — is still available on
> > Patrickʼs site:
> >
> >http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm
> 
> The only live part of that page is the code chart and does not correspond to 
> the 1064:2003 itself (they are in fact Unicode 5.0 charts,
> however close to 10646:2003 and its first 2 amendments), I am not sure the 
> original 10646:2003 (F), and the 2 translated amendments
> (1 and 2) are available anywhere and are totally obsolete today anyway. Only 
> Canada and/or Afnor may still have archived versions.

Given that for each time some benevolent people have their nameslist 
translation ready for print, 
they have to pay the tool and the fonts — just plainly disgusting. 

No wonder once you get such a localized Code Charts edition printed out in PDF, 
it has everlasting value!

> 
> >(Iʼd noticed that the contributorsʼ list has slightly shrinked without being 
> >able to find out why.)
> > The Code Charts have not been produced, however (because there is actually 
> > no
> > redactor‐in‐chief, as already stated, and also because of budget cuts the 
> > government is not in
> > a position to pay the non‐trivial amount of money asked for by Unicode for 
> > use of the fonts
> > and/or [just trying to be as precise as I can this time| the owner of the 
> > tooling needed).
> 
> A bunch of speculation here, never was a 'redactor-in-chief' for French 
> version, Unicode never asked for money because first of all
> it does not own the tool (it is licensed by the tool owner who btw does this 
> work as a giant goodwill gesture, based on the money received
> and the amount of work required to get this to work).

Shame! Unicode should manage to get the funding — no problem for Apple! (but 
for Microsoft who had to fire many employees) —
so that the developer is fully paid and rewarded. Why has Unicode no unlimited 
license? Because of the stinginess of those corporate
members that have plenty of money to waste. I’ll save that off‐topic rant but 
without ceasing to insist that he must be paid, fully paid
and paid back and paid in the future, the more as the Code Charts are now 
printed annually and grow bigger and bigger.
It’s really up to the Consortium to gather the full license fee from their 
corporate members for the English version and any other 
interested locale. Unicode’s claim of mission encompasses logically making 
available for free as many localized Code Charts and
whatever else so far as benevolent people translate the sources. 

Shouldn’t that have been clear from the beginning on?

> In a previous message you also made some speculation about Apple role or 
> possibility that have no relationship with reality.
> 
> >Having said that, I still believe that all ISO standards should have a 
> >French version, shouldnʼt they? 
> 
> You are welcome to contribute to that. Good luck though.
> 
> On a side note, I have been working with the 

Re: Unicode 11.0 and 12.0 Cover Design Art

[Lisa Moore via Unicode]

Dear Andre,

Please encourage her and other artists to make a submission. The judges 
take in many different perspectives, some more character oriented and 
some more abstract. All are welcome submissions.


Thank you,

Lisa


On 3/12/2018 7:30 AM, Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote:

surface gallery artists might like to submit entries.

I showed the Unicode character set to the student and she

Re: A sketch with the best-known Swiss tongue twister

[Martin J. Dürst via Unicode]

On 2018/03/09 21:24, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:

There are definitely many dialects across Switzerland. I think that for
*this* phrase it would be roughly the same for most of the population, with
minor differences (eg 'het' vs 'hät'). But a native speaker like Martin
would be able to say for sure.


Yes indeed. The differences would be in the vowels (not necessarily 
minor, but your mileage may vary), and the difficulty of this tongue 
twister is very much on the consonants.


Regards,   Martin.

Re: A sketch with the best-known Swiss tongue twister

[Martin J. Dürst via Unicode]

On 2018/03/10 20:26, philip chastney via Unicode wrote:


I would make the following observations on terminology in practice:



-- the newspapers in Zurich advertised courses in "Hoch Deutsch", for those who 
needed to deal with foreigners


This should probably be written 'the newspapers in Zurich advertised 
courses in "Hochdeutsch", for foreigners'. Hochdeutsch (Standard German) 
is the language used in school, and in writing, and while there may be 
some specialized courses for Swiss people who didn't do well throughout 
grade school and want to catch up, that's not what the advertisements 
are about.




-- in Luxemburg, the same language was referred to as Luxemburgish (or Letzeburgesch, 
which is Luxemburgish for "Luxemburgish ")
 (I forget what the Belgians called the language spoken in Ostbelgien)

-- I was assured by a Luxemburgish-speaking car mechanic, with a Swiss German 
speaking wife, that the two languages (dialects?) were practically identical, 
except for the names of some household items


I can't comment on this, because I don't remember to ever have listened 
to somebody speaking Letzeburgesch.



in short, there seems little point in making distinctions which cannot be 
precisely identified in practice

there appear to be significant differences between between High German and 
(what the natives call) Swiss German

there are far fewer significant differences between Swiss German and the other 
spoken Germanic languages found on the borders of Germany


In terms of linguistic analysis, that may be true. But virtually every 
native Swiss German speaker would draw a clear line between Swiss German 
(including the dialect(s) spoken in the upper Valais (Oberwallis), which 
are classified differently by linguists) and other varieties such as 
Swabian, Elsatian, Vorarlbergian, or even Letzeburgesch (which I have 
never seen classified as Allemannic)).


The reason for this is not so much basic linguistics, but much more a) 
vocabulary differences ranging from food to administrative terms, and b) 
the fact that people hear many different Swiss dialects on Swiss Radio 
and Television, while that's not the case for the dialects from outside 
the borders. So in practice, Swiss German can be delineated quite 
precisely, but more from a sociolinguistic and vocabulary perspective 
than from a purely evolutionary/historic linguistic perspective.


[Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.]

Regards,   Martin.