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 because both the Japanese and the Chinese attempts were
> conceived of as commercial projects, which ultimately did not cost out
> for the publishers, I think.
I immediately thought of these projects as government‐funded initiatives,
which is most coherent with the importance of Unicodeʼs work for these
nations given that the unified CJK repertoire has always consumed the most
of the Consortiumʼs resources, I figure out. However, looking into early
translations on the Unicode site, only those governments that are close to
the United Kingdom are unveiled (or not) to have helped promote Unicode
And from the one among the three terminological vocabularies that Iʼm able
to parse, as well as from the 60+ What‐is‐Unicode translations, we gain the
chilling impression that once the early enthusiasm had passed away, any
level of effort dropped down to zero. To such an extent that even the link
to the translation guidelines has been removed from the first place:
| Although its working language is English, the Unicode Consortium strives to
reach as many people
| and organizations in as many countries as possible around the world. One way
of doing that is by
| encouraging the translation of Unicode material into languages other than
| This page guides volunteers who wish to contribute a translation of any
| they deem interesting to their local audiences.
I fail to understand why increasing complexity decreases the need to be
widely understood. Recurrent threads show how slowly Unicode education
is spreading among English native speakers; others incidentally complained
about Unicode‐educational issues in African countries. *Not* translating
the Standard — in whatever way — wonʼt help steepen the curve.
[To be continued; sorry for delay.]