- From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:00:18 -0000
- To: "'Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no'" <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>, mgm@sybase.com
- Cc: rosenne@NetVision.net.il, Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk, i18n@dkuug.dk, xojig@xopen.co.uk, sc22wg14@dkuug.dk, www-international@w3.org, wgi18n@terena.nl, keld@dkuug.dk
1) Transliteration has to addressed.
2) Considering transliteration as language variation is easy from a
computer point of view: no new mechanisms are needed.
3) The comprehensive coding on languages is another problem.
4) Three parameters are needed to code transliteration:
4.1) Translit : A code to indicate transliteration.
4.2) Source : A language code in a language system. For example,
"el" for Greek in ISO 639.
4.3) Target : A language code in a language system. For example,
"fr" for French in ISO 639.
5) In an evolution of RFC 1766 could be: t-el-fr
where:
t = Translit.
el = Source.
fr = Target.
6) If RFC 1766 moves to a more comprehensive language code system, the
transliteration could follow.
7) Script is only one of the factors. For example:
Papadopoulos : Greek transliteration into French. Uses the Latin
script.
Papadopulos : Greek transliteration into Spanish. Uses the Latin
script.
Regards
Tomas
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 07:04:31 UTC