- From: John Clews <Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:10:07 GMT
- To: manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org, i18n@dkuug.dk, xojig@xopen.co.uk, sc22wg14@dkuug.dk
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, wgi18n@terena.nl, keld@dkuug.dk
In message <5DFB753C1329D1119DEC00805F15C342D91C@WS015> Carrasco Benitez Manuel writes: > Transliteration should be coded in RFC 1766 (Mr. Alvestrand ?). > > For example: > > t-xx > > where > t : transliteration > xx : a 639 language code I'm happy to cooperate with Mr. Alvestrand if necessary. There are two points to note: 1. The work of ISO/TC46/SC2 actually provides the transliteration schemes, it doesn't just refer to specific transliteration schemes; 2. transliteration refers to the conversion of text/data in one script to text/data in a another script: a language may be written in more than one script, and a script (e.g. Latin or Cyrillic) may have several languages which use that script. 3. I would agree with what Carrasco Benitez Manuel implies, that there should be more coordination between different parts of ISO and IS/IEC, and bodies like IETF. I hope the Cultural Adapatility Workshop in Ottawa in January will address these issues. Several data elements like language codes, script codes, currency codes, where IT developers and users are the largest single group of users, are too often done separately without any coordination. Best wishes John Clews -- Chair of ISO/TC46/SC2: Conversion of Written Languages; Member of CEN/TC304: Character Set Technology; Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC2: Character Sets. SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Road, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, England Email: Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk; tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432
Received on Monday, 17 November 1997 06:41:11 UTC