David Hopwood said:
Note that if deprecation implies no longer treating these characters
as ignorables,
It would not.
The only character *property* implication that deprecation of
Plane 14 language tags (or any other characters) would have is
the requirement that they gain the Deprecated
At 09:56 PM 11/5/02 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
I've seen lots of discussion about the purpose/potential of the tags
- much of it misguided - but, unless I missed it in the torrent, there
seems to be no smoking gun of IETF style
I think it's time to remember the limited purpose for which Plane 14
tagging was created: plain-text protocol messages. The idea is that
Well, not really. The Plane 0E (!) tag characters were invented solely
for political reasons for ONE IETF working group. But not even that
one IETF WG
At 22:25 04/11/02 +, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
Proponents of deprecating language tags probably assume that plain
text isn't much used and that higher-level protocols can therefore
nearly always be used, but that is not the case in my experience:
plain text is still widely used.
The reason
may be useful for display issues.
The most commonly suggested use, and the original impetus,
for Plane 14 language tags is to suggest to the display
subsystem that “Chinese-style” or “Japanese-style” glyphs
are preferred for unified Han characters. [...]
IMHO, there has never been any
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
{ As a side note, the idea that a language my use foreign words seems
terribly naive to me. It is true that, in Italian, we use loanwords such as
hardware, punk, or footing, but it would be silly to consider or tag
them as English words. They are genuinely Italian
some stylized glyphs.
This doesn't seem a valid argument. Perhaps, those other things deserve to
be deprecated as well. Or perhaps they are so important that they are worth
the trouble.
Talking specifically about the bidi controls, there are a few intrinsic
differences from Plane 14 language tags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:45:26PM +0100, Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
I found the arguments quite convincing - why deprecate the tags?
Noone has till now brought an argument to deprecate them...
Because it's been a long standing
Doug Ewell recently said:
1. Language tags may be useful for display issues.
Another use for language tagging is the correct formation of ligatures. E.g.
fi ligature is fine in English, but causes problems in Turkish because of
confusion with undotted i.
Tim
--
Tim Partridge. Any
for display issues.
The most commonly suggested use, and the original impetus,
for Plane 14 language tags is to suggest to the display
subsystem that “Chinese-style” or “Japanese-style” glyphs
are preferred for unified Han characters. [...]
IMHO, there has never been any practical need
At 12:57 11/5/2002, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Doug Ewell recently said:
1. Language tags may be useful for display issues.
Another use for language tagging is the correct formation of ligatures. E.g.
fi ligature is fine in English, but causes problems in Turkish because of
confusion with
John Hudson scripsit:
I don't think anyone is questioning that language tagging is a good and
useful thing. The question is whether using character codepoints as
language identifiers is a good thing. I'm inclined to the view that it is
not, and that language tagging should be handled,
John Hudson wrote:
I don't think anyone is questioning that language tagging is a good and
useful thing. The question is whether using character codepoints as
language identifiers is a good thing. I'm inclined to the view that it is
not, and that language tagging should be handled, along
Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
I've seen lots of discussion about the purpose/potential of the tags
- much of it misguided - but, unless I missed it in the torrent, there
seems to be no smoking gun of IETF style implementations, many years
after this solution was
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Thomas Chan wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
It is false that Japanese is unreadable if displayed with Chinese-style
glyphs, or that Polish is unreadable if displayed with Spanish-styles acute
accents.
It is also not even an issue of language, but
Hi.
1. Language tags may be useful for display issues.
The user viewing the text (and preferring 'Japanese-style' glyphs)
may be another person than the user authoring the text
Hrrr.
It's quite clear, that only the author has inserted the tags
- thus the text will appear to any other user as
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:45:26PM +0100, Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
I found the arguments quite convincing - why deprecate the tags?
Noone has till now brought an argument to deprecate them...
Because it's been a long standing discussion on this list. The argument
against them is that they're
Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
I found the arguments quite convincing
So do I.
But I think, they should be stated as clearly,
and conclusively, as possible. Thence my recent
comments.
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
John Hudson wrote:
the OpenType 'language system' tags are better understood as typographic
system tags, and it is not clear to me that it would always be possible
or desirable to link a particular OT typographic tag to a particular
Plane 14 language tag -- or, indeed, to any language
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, so my mini-essay against deprecating the Plan 14 language tags
didn't turn out quite so mini after all.
It was very interesting.
[...]
Other scripts besides Han can benefit from plain-text language tagging
as well. A common Latin-script example is
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:25:18PM +, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
Or what about Coptic? Unicode encodes most Coptic letters as Greek,
which means that the same font cannot be used for displaying Greek and
Coptic.
This is going to change, though. See the top two papers here
At 22:25 + 2002-11-04, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
Or what about Coptic? Unicode encodes most Coptic letters as Greek,
which means that the same font cannot be used for displaying Greek and
Coptic. (TUC 3.0, p. 168: Texts that mix Greek and Coptic languages
together must employ appropriate
My paper on Plane 14 language tags is now available in PDF format:
http://home.adelphia.net/~dewell/Plane14.pdf
Thanks to everyone who has commented so far.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
Consortium published a list of “Open
Issues for Public Review” which included (as Issue #1) a proposal to
“Deprecate the Plane 14 Language Tags” introduced in Unicode Technical
Report #7 and subsequently added to Unicode 3.1.
The public-review process had been proposed at the UTC 91/L2 188 joint
, that is interesting. So what exactly is the public consultation about
deprecating the plane 14 language tags about? If the Unicode Technical
Committee decided to deprecate the plane 14 language tags, what would be the
effect of that decision?
Nevertheless, on the facts described, I agree
William Overington scripsit:
Oh, that is interesting. So what exactly is the public consultation about
deprecating the plane 14 language tags about? If the Unicode Technical
Committee decided to deprecate the plane 14 language tags, what would be the
effect of that decision?
Deprecated
Doug Ewell wrote as follows.
[snip]
Right off the bat, though, I thank the UTC for initiating this public
review process which allows non-members like me to get their two cents
in regarding Unicode policies. (Hmm, two American-specific figures of
speech in one sentence -- perhaps it should have
William Overington WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk
wrote:
I do note however that review 3 refers to a document which is only
available to Unicode Consortium members, which seems a strange thing
if views of interested individuals are being sought.
I agree.
Also, it is a pity
At 05:29 10/29/2002, William Overington wrote:
Also, it is a pity that this new era of Unicode glasnost (displayed with a
ligature? :-) ) comes so shortly after the last Unicode Technical
Committee meeting the minutes of which state the consensus about no more
ligatures being added to the
On the http://www.unicode.org/ website is a link entitled
Public Issues for Review
which link leads to the http://www.unicode.org/review/ web page.
The first such issue upon which comments are invited is the following
proposal.
Deprecate the Plane 14 Language Tags
It seems to me
William Overington scripsit:
It seems to me that deprecating these language tags might be a bad thing as
the language tags could well have potential use in plain text files on the
DVB-MHP (Digital Video Broadcasting - Multimedia Home Platform) platform in
order to signal to a Java program
I'm in the process of writing my own mini-essay, in which I will argue
strongly against the deprecation of Plane 14 language tags. Betcha that
doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's not quite ready yet, but it
definitely will be ready long before the November 5 deadline.
Right off the bat
At 12:50 -0700 2002-10-26, Doug Ewell wrote:
Right off the bat, though, I thank the UTC for initiating this public
review process which allows non-members like me to get their two cents
in regarding Unicode policies. (Hmm, two American-specific figures of
speech in one sentence -- perhaps it
At 06:31 AM 6/29/00 -0800, you wrote:
Thanks to all for your comments. Has anyone actually used these tags
yet?
Maybe we should postpone these tags for a while until we get a louder
answer to your question, Doug. Once coded, here forever.
A./
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Curtis Clark wrote:
At 09:45 AM 00.06.30 -0800, Michael Everson wrote:
Evil, I should think. But not inappropriate.
One Code to rule them all.
One Code to find them.
One Code to bring them all,
And in the Darkness bind them,
In the land of Unicode where the Planes
Ar 05:54 -0800 2000-06-28, scríobh somebody:
Since RFC 1766 specifies that language tags are not case significant,
it is recommended that for language tags, the entire tag be lowercased
before conversion to Plane 14 tag characters.
Gosh I think this is a bad idea. If I were to write language
Murray Sargent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that in C, it's essentially just as fast to make character
comparisons
with (ch | 0x20) as with ch alone, i.e., if you know ch is in an ASCII
range
(0 - 0x7F or 0xE - 0xE007F), you can do a case insensitive compare as
quickly as a case
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather, it is just a suggestion that since case is not significant in
the language tags, it is slightly preferable to do the early
"normalization" (i.e. case folding to lowercase, in this instance),
rather than emitting arbitrarily mixed case tags
as quickly as a case sensitive one.
Except, of course, in Turkey where the lowercase of 'I' is not 'i' and the
uppercase of 'i' is not 'I'.
Unless I missed a very recent draft (that ought to be refused, IMHO),
Turkey (or Azerbaijani) was not used for the plane 14 language tags
Ar 08:05 -0800 2000-06-29, scríobh John Cowan:
Plane 14 was a prophylactic spell.
"Agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"?
Michael Everson
Subject: Re: Plane 14 language tags
Brendan Murray wrote:
Murray Sargent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that in C, it's essentially just as fast to make character
comparisons with (ch | 0x20) as with ch alone, i.e., if you know
ch is in an ASCII range (0 - 0x7F or 0xE
I have two questions about Plane 14 language tags as specified in
Technical Report #7:
1. Does anyone know of any implementation that interprets language tags
and actually does something with the result? I'm not looking for
code, just information and ideas.
2. (Ken and Glenn) Can you
Doug Ewell wrote:
2. (Ken and Glenn) Can you explain in a little more detail the rationale
for lowercasing the entire language tag? It seems that if RFC 1766
is the model to be followed, then the RFC 1766 casing convention
(lowercase for language, uppercase for country) might
Doug Ewell asked:
2. (Ken and Glenn) Can you explain in a little more detail the rationale
for lowercasing the entire language tag? It seems that if RFC 1766
is the model to be followed, then the RFC 1766 casing convention
(lowercase for language, uppercase for country) might
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:03 PM
To: Unicode List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Plane 14 language tags
Doug Ewell asked:
2. (Ken and Glenn) Can you explain in a little more detail the
rationale
for lowercasing the entire language tag? It seems
45 matches
Mail list logo
