On 04/22/2002 02:18:52 PM John Hudson wrote:
>This raises a related topic. The codes to tag combinations of script and >(the poorly named) language system in OpenType together represent a set of >specific typographic conventions that may or may not be identified along >language lines and which are best presented to users independently of >locales (however locales end up being defined)... There is a section in my paper that discusses typographic conventions. I think Paul got a copy of an early draft, but I didn't get any comments from him. Even so, I see what I have proposed as just that -- a proposal -- in the hope that others (like yourself) who are able to think through both the real-world linguistic-related issues as well as practical IT implementation issues can also work together to refine and revise as needed. >More recently, in discussions >with Paul Nelson at Microsoft, I have come to the conclusion that there may >be instances in which it might be desirable to tag specific sets of >typographic conventions independently of 'writing system' per se. This, of >course, depends on how one is defining the term writing system. Peter, how >do you define it? I have defined writing system as the implementation of a set of characters and writing behaviours for representing a particular language. So, whenever two languages are involved, this implies two distinct writing systems. That may not match the way some people view the world; e.g. some might react to a suggestion that (say) English text and Indonesian text involve two different writing systems. But the model doesn't have to exactly match every detail of reality, and specifically doesn't have to be perfectly relational; it just has to be implementable, practical and adequate for realistic IT purposes. Now, for what you're talking about, I think I've mentioned to you before my idea that the OpenType "language" tags should really be conceived of as denoting groups of writing systems that share common typographic conventions. So... >It might be possible to define the term to include >distinctions between different typographic conventions (is, for example, >English written with the long-s a different writing system from modern >English?), but it is also possible to conceive of typographic conventions >as a separate layer above writing systems. That is pretty much the conclusion I come to in the paper. If you'd like to get a peek at the paper, I can send it to you, or you can get it from the ISO/TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 doc repository (http://www.rtt.org/ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1/N-doc/N091R1.pdf). It's long, but it attempts to deal with a lot of issues. Typographic issues are the specific focus of section 6.2. - 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]>
