On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +0000, 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 translate an ISO
> standard. But unless this is done by the ISO Sub-committee
> (SC2 here) itself, this is not a long-term solution. This was almost 15 years
> ago. I should know, I have been project editor for 10646 since
> October 2000 (I started as project editor in 1997 for part-2, and been
> involved in both Unicode and SC2 since 1990).
Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got
Andrew’s point, too.
> Now to some alternative facts:
> >Since ISO has made of standards a business, all prior versions are removed
> >from the internet,
> >so that they donʼt show up even in that list (which Iʼd used to grab a free
> >copy, just to check
> > the differences). Because if they had public archives of the free
> > standards, not having any
> >for the pay standards would stand out even more.
> >This is why if you need an older version for reference, you need to find a
> >good soul in
> > the organization, who will be so kind to make a copy for you in the
> > archives at the
> > headquarters.
> OK, yes, the old versions are removed from the ISO site. Andrew has probably
> easier access to older versions than you through BSI.
> He has been involved directly in SC2 work for many years. The 2003 version is
> completely irrelevant now anyway and again was not
> done by the SC, there was never a project editor for a French version of
Call him whatever, how can a project thrive without a head?
I think relevance is not the only criterium in evaluating a translation. The
most important would probably
be usefulness. Older versions are an appropriate means to get in touch with
Unicode, as discussed when
some old core specs were proposed on this list.
> >The last published French version of ISO/IEC 10646 — to which you
> >contributed — is still available on
> > Patrickʼs site:
> The only live part of that page is the code chart and does not correspond to
> the 1064:2003 itself (they are in fact Unicode 5.0 charts,
> however close to 10646:2003 and its first 2 amendments), I am not sure the
> original 10646:2003 (F), and the 2 translated amendments
> (1 and 2) are available anywhere and are totally obsolete today anyway. Only
> Canada and/or Afnor may still have archived versions.
Given that for each time some benevolent people have their nameslist
translation ready for print,
they have to pay the tool and the fonts — just plainly disgusting.
No wonder once you get such a localized Code Charts edition printed out in PDF,
it has everlasting value!
> >(Iʼd noticed that the contributorsʼ list has slightly shrinked without being
> >able to find out why.)
> > The Code Charts have not been produced, however (because there is actually
> > no
> > redactor‐in‐chief, as already stated, and also because of budget cuts the
> > government is not in
> > a position to pay the non‐trivial amount of money asked for by Unicode for
> > use of the fonts
> > and/or [just trying to be as precise as I can this time| the owner of the
> > tooling needed).
> A bunch of speculation here, never was a 'redactor-in-chief' for French
> version, Unicode never asked for money because first of all
> it does not own the tool (it is licensed by the tool owner who btw does this
> work as a giant goodwill gesture, based on the money received
> and the amount of work required to get this to work).
Shame! Unicode should manage to get the funding — no problem for Apple! (but
for Microsoft who had to fire many employees) —
so that the developer is fully paid and rewarded. Why has Unicode no unlimited
license? Because of the stinginess of those corporate
members that have plenty of money to waste. I’ll save that off‐topic rant but
without ceasing to insist that he must be paid, fully paid
and paid back and paid in the future, the more as the Code Charts are now
printed annually and grow bigger and bigger.
It’s really up to the Consortium to gather the full license fee from their
corporate members for the English version and any other
interested locale. Unicode’s claim of mission encompasses logically making
available for free as many localized Code Charts and
whatever else so far as benevolent people translate the sources.
Shouldn’t that have been clear from the beginning on?
> In a previous message you also made some speculation about Apple role or
> possibility that have no relationship with reality.
> >Having said that, I still believe that all ISO standards should have a
> >French version, shouldnʼt they?
> You are welcome to contribute to that. Good luck though.
> On a side note, I have been working with the same team of French volunteers
> to revive the French name list. So, this may re-appear
> in the Unicode web site at some point. Because I also produce the original
> code chart (in cooperation with Rick McGowan) for both ISO
> and Unicode it is a bit easier for me (although non-trivial). It also helps
> that I can read the French list :-). But the names list is probably
> as far as you want to go, and even that requires a serious amount of work in
> term of terms definition and production.
Indeed. I experience how true that is. There is a lot of discordance about how
to call things.
E.g. didn’t you first translate TURNED (R and so on) to RETOURNÉ or to TOURNÉ?
(I furiously hate CULBUTÉ).
I welcome your effort in updating the French part of the Unicode site. Actually
this is so outdated that it is even
disallowed to search engines! Here:
| Disallow: /fr/ # obsolete pages and charts
Shame over shame.
And when a guy works over the holidays to get the mess fixed, it is ignored by