Re: Translating the standard

On 13 Mar 2018, at 02:49, Yifán Wáng via Unicode > wrote: Somewhat digressing from the topic, but I'd like to make some comment on this part as I smell a persistent myth among some, hopefully small number of, software engineers in Anglosphere.

Re: Translating the standard

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

Re: Translating the standard

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.

Re: Translating the standard

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

Re: Translating the standard

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

RE: Translating the standard

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

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-12 16:39 GMT+09:00 Alastair Houghton via Unicode : > On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode > wrote: >> >> Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English >> may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no

RE: Translating the standard

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

Re: Translating the standard

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:00:16 +, Andrew West wrote: > > On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode > wrote: > > > > Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version > > No it is not, and never has been. > > Why don't you check your facts before making misleading

Re: Translating the standard

On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version No it is not, and never has been. Why don't you check your facts before making misleading statements to this list? > or at least, it should have an

Re: Translating the standard

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:39:53 +, Alastair Houghton wrote: > > On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English > > may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale. > >

Re: Translating the standard

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:41:35 -0800, Ken Whistler wrote: > > > On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts > > crash even > > before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project succeeded? > > Essentially

Re: Translating the standard

On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English > may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale. Agreed. Implementers will already understand English;

Re: Translating the standard

On 11/03/18 21:05, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:35:11PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > I fail to understand why increasing complexity decreases the need to be > > widely understood. > > I’m pretty sure that everybody will agree that the need gets all

Re: Translating the standard

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:41:35 -0800, Ken Whistler wrote: > > > On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts > > crash even > > before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project succeeded? > > Essentially

Re: Translating the standard

On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts crash even before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project succeeded? Essentially because both the Japanese and the Chinese attempts were conceived of as

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On 08/03/18 19:33, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:05:06PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > https://www.amazon.fr/Unicode-5-0-pratique-Patrick-Andries/dp/2100511408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8=books=1206989878=8-1 > > You’re

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 04:25:53 -0500, Elsebeth Flarup via Unicode wrote: > > For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea. > […] > > There are other reasons to not do this. I assume that the reasons you are thinking of, are congruent with those that Ken already

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea. As long as there are people interested in maintaining the translation, identifying deltas and easily translating just the deltas would NOT be difficult, however. Modern computer aided translation tools all use

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:03:28 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a > > translation, be it only the Nameslist. > > For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An > alternative would be paragraph

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:27:06 +0100 (CET) Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a > translation, be it only the Nameslist. For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An alternative would be

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: […] > * the core text of the standard (section 3 about conformance and requirements > is the first thing to adapt). > There's absolutely no need however to do that as a pure translation, it can > be rewritten and presented >

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:   > There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt" > significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and > various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt" significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and instead of translating all, the concepts are summarized, reexplained, but still