- From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:39:03 +0100
- To: W3 I18N <www-international@w3.org>
- Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, "'lafourca@lirmm.fr'" <lafourca@lirmm.fr>
The document exist and one should be able to label them. Harald has a
valid point and perhaps another mechanism is more appropiate. Indeed,
instintively I would go for separated fields rather than overcharging
RFC1766. The reason to suggest then extension of RF1766 is that
it would easly integrate with the existing infrastructure; e.g., HTTP
will work without another header field.
Regarding "how it is transliterared", it is already in the
Internet-Draft;
http://dragoman.org/winter/lanco.html e.g.,
el-tran-en
Greek transliterated into English using the default method
el-tran-en-foo
Greek transliterated into English using "foo" method
Regards
Tomas
====================================================
Larry Masinter
> IMHO: no
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Harald T Alvestran:
> My answer hasn't changed:
>
> 1) I don't see a compelling need. Others might.
> 2) This is orthogonal to the language code, and trying to extend 1766
> to cover this case may be actively harmful.
> If needed, it should be a separate label.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Mathieu Lafourcade:
> IMHO yes
> and I think the label should included how it is transliterated (ie a
> transliteration name).
> For example, Malay roman (standard) may be transliterated in Arabic
> characters (the Jawi transliteration). And vice-versa. But some
characters
> have been added to the classical Arabic alphabet to deal with Malay
sounds
> inexistant in Arabic. Furthermore, transliteration can be done with or
> without the vowels.
> If you transliterate Thai in Roman characters, the expected result
won't be
> identical into French or into English or into German.
> So in general "this is a Greek text transliterated into English" is
far
> too underspecifed.
> Remember, how many langages can be written with different accepted
> character sets or conventions.
Received on Thursday, 15 October 1998 06:39:18 UTC