W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 1997


From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:00:18 -0000
Message-Id: <5DFB753C1329D1119DEC00805F15C342D923@WS015>
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

      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
    Papadopulos   : Greek transliteration into Spanish.  Uses the Latin

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 07:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:41 UTC