- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:36:33 +0900
- To: "Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad.hussain@nu.edu.pk>, "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Jonathan Rosenne'" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>, <www-international@w3.org>, <public-iri@w3.org>, <psayo@idrc.org.in>, "'Maria Ng Lee Hoon'" <mng@idrc.org.sg>, "'nayyara.karamat -'" <nayyara.karamat@nu.edu.pk>, <cc@panl10n.net>
Hello Sarmad, At 16:45 07/08/13, Sarmad Hussain wrote: > >Dear All, > >Thank you all for your valuable input. We will be looking at all these >points raised, in detail, as we work. > >However, I submit a couple of additional observations. > >First, the aim of internet should be to become MULTI-LINGUAL not just >"Multi-script", latter solution only serving the multi-lingual needs of the >people in a limited way. Of course the basic aim of the Internet is to be multilingual. Web pages and email messages are in (a) certain language(s), and it should be possible (and mostly already is) to use the widest range of languages in such places. However, it may be ill-advised and counter-productive to require multilingual support in areas where multiscript support is all that is needed, indeed where providing multilingual support would create more problems than solutions. A typical example of this, already mentioned in my previous mail, are top-level domain names. For several decades in a restricted usership, and at least for a full decade in wide deployment among very varied userships, the existing top-level domain names have served a wide range of people using a wide range of languages written in the Latin script, despite not being multilingual. I have not seen or heard any evidence that the non-multilingualness of Latin-script TLDs is a problem. Thinking about it, it actually provides quite a few benefits. As an example, consider the TLD for Switzerland, "ch". Switzerland is a multilingual country with four official languages (see top left of http://www.admin.ch/). It would only be confusing both inside Switzerland as well as outside if different languages used differnt TLDs for Switzerland. For many people, the "ch" is just conventional, best known because it appears on the back of many cars. The "ch" is actually taken from the Latin (language, not script) name of the country, "Confoederatio Helvetica", but many people don't realize that, and for TLDs, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that people who want to know the TLD of Switzerland can look it up, can remember it, can type it, and so on. It's a benefit if a TLD is easily derivable from the country name (e.g. "fr" for France), but it's not always so, because otherwise, there would be clashes. It would be very confusing if a TLD changed depending on language (e.g. "ge" for Germany in English rather than the current "de" (Deutschland, Germany in German), or "al" for Allemagne (Germany in French), or the many other names that Germany has in various languages. It might help some people a tiny bit, but it would make it impossible to send URIs using these TLDs across language boundaries, and would lead to conflicts because there are only so many two-letter combinations. I don't know exactly how many languages are used (written as well as spoken) in Pakistan, but I know that it's more than just one. I think it would be very much advisable to use the same Arabic-script TLDs for all the languages written in Arabic script. And of course what's the case inside Pakistan can, with a little bit more work, also be applied across the whole region that uses the Arabic script. >Second, we must find solutions which may challenge technology for >facilitating people, not solutions which challenge people to facilitate >technology. Again, very much agreed. But let's not try to work on solutions where none are required (see above), and let's not try to work on solutions where none are possible. Technology is very flexible, but it has its limits, too. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 07:07:20 UTC