Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> · Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:46:28 +0900

Hello John,

Many thanks for doing this so quickly and precisely.

With regards to transliterations, I think two uses have to be
distinguished:
a) Transliterations for human users. These will continue to be
   used.
b) Transliterations for computers, i.e. to get around limitations
   in encodings or software. Beta coding is clearly such an example.
   These will die out. Rather than copying beta code into XML,
   converting it back to the real stuff is highly advisable
   (and a tool is apparently provided on that Web site).

With respect to not yet encoded scripts, such as those mentioned in
the article, there are various cases:
- Things not really scripts, rejected (e.g. Klingon)
- Variants that are not considered independent scripts
- Not yet encoded scripts. In this case, it's much more
  useful to work on documentation and stuff for getting
  the script encoded in Unicode rather than to invent yet
  another transliteration.

Regards,    Martin.

At 04:59 06/07/13, John Cowan wrote:
>I have just sent the following email to Neel Smith with respect to his
>page "Developing standards for encoding languages and writing systems
>in the editing of Greek and Latin texts".
>
>Dear Dr. Smith:
>
>I write to you as a member of LTRU, the IETF working group responsible
>for RFC 3066bis, and as a long-term member of ietf-languages, the mailing
>list that actually registers language tags.  I do not, however, speak
>officially for either of these.
>
>I have read with interest your page on language and script encoding
>at http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script after
>Chris Lilley of W3C drew attention to it on the www-international
>mailing list.  I'll send all three lists copies of this email and (with
>your permission) any reply you send me.

>I would urge you to join ietf-languages using the web page at
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages and discuss
>the matter further in a public forum.
>
>-- 
>John Cowan      cowan@ccil.org        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     