On 10/03/2000 12:50:37 PM "Carl W. Brown" wrote: >It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which is part of the >new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications. However to my amazment that do not >have separate script designations for traditional and simplified scripts. Two points of clarification: - There is not yet any new RFC-1766 specification. (BTW, when it does appear, it will have a different name.) - The use of ISO 15924 for "sub-language specifications" has been removed from the draft for the successor to RFC-1766 because there was no consensus that the meaning and usage of these was clear. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Steven R. Loomis
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Yung-Fong Tang
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Doug Ewell
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Ayers, Mike
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Peter_Constable
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Jukka . Korpela
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Michael Everson
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Marco . Cimarosti
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Carl W. Brown
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Thomas Chan
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Thomas Chan
- Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional John Cowan
- RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional Michael Everson

