- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:32:49 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
Daniel Glazman 2009-02-12 08.54: > > [resent, it apparently never hit www-style yesterday] > > As I already told the CSS WG, an expert told me tonight that numbered > lists using the traditional armenian numbering are very rare. She sent > me a few minutes ago a mail telling me that even in liturgic documents, > numbering is done using arabic numbers and almost never using armenian > numbers, even in old sources. > > Attached is a copy of the Gospel of Saint John. > > So the question about 'armenian' mapping to 'lower-armenian' or > 'upper-armenian' is probably not a hot issue: these values will > remain underused anyway. > > http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/csswg/ArmenianExample.jpg In short, a photo of a modern Armenian Bible is a bad proof for the unrelevance of the Armenian enumeration system as that enumeration is a modern day phenomena accross most versions of modern Bible editions. [1][2][3] *BUT* it could be, though, that traditional numeric Armenian numeric system might not be the most pressuring thing for Armenian internet users. Wheras Armenican alphabetic list would be very relevant. Are there any langauge that doesn't use its alphabet for making simple alphabetically enumerated lists from time to time? Phonebooks exist in any language, right? (PS: I know that even alphabetical lists are a complicated matter.) The CSS 3 lists module [4] makes a decent effort at listing all kinds of enumeration systems. The Armenian one that we are discussing, for example, is cathegorised as a algorithmic number system, as is the "lower-roman" and "upper-roman". But the CSS 3 lists module is very bad when it comes to defining *systematic* names, that are usable for users, for the different listing systems. For example, if both "armenian", "upper-armenian" and "lower-armenian" is used as names for the algorithic Armenian numeric system, then what should the we pick as name for alphabetic Armenian system? It seems to me that we could need something like the LTRU (Language Tag Registry Update working group) to go through the *names* for all the numeric systems of the world and come up with a simple and systematic naming. Because, until we get a such systematic naming convention, then it will be very difficult to get users to use these these options, even if they exist. For example, for Norwegians to refer to "Norwegian" lists as "upper-Norwegian" is backward. As if we are not using the Latin system just because we add ÆØÅ to the list? If, for example, we could add the Langauge tag for "Norwegian" to "upper-latin" in order to get Norwegian lists, then it would have been much simpler: upper-latin-no Or even upper-alpha-no (Where 'latn' is the language tagging code for 'latin'.) The latter option could also be applied for (the yet not specified) *alphabetic* Armenian: upper-alpha-hy or alpha-hy For non-alphabetic systems that still uses the alphabet to write the numbers, such as the traditional Armenian one that we discuss, one could e.g. use something like this (where 'Arm' is the language code for Armenian script): numb-Armn or numb-hy And if it is necassary to discern between Soviet style numbering for a particualr year and other styles, then such info could be added e.g. like this - in a similar way that Language Tags works: numb-hy-ussr1922 The lack of a coherent, systematic and simple naming system for the different list modules prevents uptake and use of these list types. It also prevents adding of new numeric and alphabetic lists for other languages and scripts, such as e.g. Cyrillic and Russian, Ukrainan etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible#Format [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GenevaBible.JPG [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Chapters_and_verses [4] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-lists/ -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 12:33:36 UTC