- From: Daniel Yacob <yacob@geez.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:29:42 -0400
- To: donpark@docuverse.com, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, yacob@geez.org
Don, Sorry to be slow to reply. I did reply to Mr Cowan but not the list as I'm not on board. I'm reluctant to join, I'd be in over my head and this could well be just a passing thread. Here is what I replied to him: =========== > names cannot. The reference to "Amharic transcription" suggests > that it is attribute names that are meant, since there would be no > need for transcription (= romanization) of the values. Yes for attribute names. The values I transliterated (not transcribed) if they were to be Amharic, etc. The text between the markups would be transliterated (also nested within transliteration system markups) or UTF-8 if the XML document itself was the output of another processing software. I wasn't really conscious about why I was making these decisions at the time I did so. It just seemed to be the natural flow of things. Thinking about it now I would definitely come to the same conclusions (of course its too late, I'm jaded). The terms involved however probably played a role (conscious or not) as to why I chose to either translate or transcribe. =========== > Daniel, could you elaborate on your usage of Amharic transcription for > attribute names? To add to it, I often do initial development work with amharic terms and later revert to english depending on who will have to read the documents later. For personal work I might choose the term that is quickest to type and not worry about the language so long as I won't forget what I meant later. I never made these decisions as part of a grandious design schema, it was just a matter of convenience/laziness. cheers, /Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 18:18:57 UTC