W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Armenian numbering: findings, recommendations and request to CSS WG

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:07:13 +0100
Message-ID: <49941F01.6040400@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, www-international@w3.org

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> In short, a photo of a modern Armenian Bible is a bad proof for the 
> unrelevance of the Armenian enumeration system as that enumeration is a 
> modern day phenomena accross most versions of modern Bible editions. 
> [1][2][3]

This is not a proof but an example. The fact, and I do care only about
facts here, is the take of a professionnal translator for french courts
and the european commission that has a degree in armenian litterature
from Erevan university, sees dozens of armenian documents (official or
not) per day, and has studied the history of the language and its
writing system. Is that enough ?

About the names, yes, you are right, some names could be better
designed. But some have more than ten years of existence now and
we can redo history.

There are also issues with intuitiveness. At first glance,
"upper-latin-no" seems to me pure non-sense. Latin numbers
are i, ii, iii, iv, ...; "no" seems to me the negation of "yes"
and not "norwegian". And "latin" and "norwegian" is a bit strange
for numbering in the same ident. In that case "upper-norwegian"
is a fairly good compromise, easily understandable at first glance
by anyone.
Purity of design does not always lead to the most human-readable
result, and I remind you that our users, web designers, are humans.
Anyway, we're not going to change that now, that's too late in the

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 13:07:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC