RE: Transliteration

>I still think that these efforts to describe with "language", what
seems to
>me, to be a case of a general transformation of various things
including
>script and language, are a bad idea.

There are documents that are transliteration of language for another
language. Tagging a Greek doc as Greek when it has been
transliterated into the Latin alphabet for Frech speaker would
be wrong.  Neither can it be marked as French.  Hence there is
a real need for this type of tagging.

>I'm also wondering where the names for, say, scripts or transformation
>schemes will come from, and how they will be registered. If there's
some
>existing ISO work to reference, that would be nice.
>
>Does IANA want to get involved registering terminology that's grown-up
>ad-hoc in lingustics? I'm thinking of things like romanization schemes:
>Hepburn, Kunrei, Nippon (for Japanese), McCune-Reischauer (for Korean).

There must be a register for "transformations".  Probably it must be
a committee as ISO TC46/SC2.  I contacted them.

Probably, for each record in the register there mus be an "authority"
that look after the gory details of each transformation scheme, such
as rules, etc.

>As I said before, I think there's some prior art in the work of the
Text
>Encoding Inititative, but I don't know if they have a complete
>classification scheme for this sort of thing.

If any other forum have done work in this area, one has to incorporate
it.
I trying to follow thid lead.

Regards
Tomas

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 1998 11:45:53 UTC