Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a
solution for reading, but not for writing, because the source text is in one
specific spelling or character system.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a
solution for reading, but not for writing,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
- a split of the Wikipedias into two; this is most likely when there are
other linguistic differences e.g. in dictionary.
Dictionary is not a problem. This is the option for Ekavian-Iyekavian
conversion engine for
Dear Aryeh,
Your idea of converting on the fly would not work in many cases. Take for
example the ß in German WP. Swiss (registered) readers can decide via their
Preferences to see only ss and never ß, because the Swiss do not use ß.
That's ok. But vice versa, not every ss is to be converted to
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
When you declare one version canonical the risk is that you will have
supporters of the losing version(s) becoming irrationally angry.
Which version was canonical is an implementation detail that wouldn't
even be visible
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Dear Aryeh,
Your idea of converting on the fly would not work in many cases. Take for
example the ß in German WP. Swiss (registered) readers can decide via their
Preferences to see only ss and never ß, because the Swiss do not use ß.
That's ok. But vice versa, not every
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect this would be feasible to get working to an acceptable
level, but only with a lot of effort. Natural languages are really
messy. :(
If you treat words as strings, they are really messy, yes. But, if
