Re: Translating the standard
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:48:51 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote: On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their national members. There is a way to transpose international standards to national standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN for European Norm. A./ 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode : On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. ... Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too. Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard. A./ Thanks for correction. And I confess and apologize that on Patrick’s French Unicode 5.0 Code Charts page ( http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm ), there is no instance of "version", although the item is referred to as "ISO 10646:2003 (F)", from which it can ordinarily be inferred that "ISO" did back the project and that it is considered as the French version of the standard. I wasn’t aware that this kind of parsing the facts is somewhat informal and shouldn’t be handled on mailing lists without a caveat. That said, the French transposition of ISO/IEC 10646 was not carried out as just sort of a joint venture of Canada and France (which btw has stepped out, leaving Québec alone supporting the cost of future editions! Really ugly), given that it got feedback from numerous countries, part of which was written in French, and went through a heavy ballot process. Thus, getting it changed is not easy since it was approved by the time, and any change requests should be documented and are primarily damageable as threatening stability. Name changes affecting rare characters prove to be feasible, while on the other hand, syncing the French name of U+202F with common practice and TUS is obviously more complicated, which in turn compromises usability in UIs, where we’re therefore likely to use descriptors i.e. altered names for roughly half of the characters bearing a specific name. Somehow the same rationale as for UTN #24 but somewhat less apposite given that the French transposition is not constrained by stability policies. Best regards, Marcel
Re: Translating the standard
On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their national members. There is a way to transpose international standards to national standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN for European Norm. A./ 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode>: On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. ... Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too. Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard. A./
Re: Unicode 11.0 and 12.0 Cover Design Art
Maybe we should just throw in the towel and put "DON'T PANIC" on the cover in big, friendly letters.
Re: Translating the standard
It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their national members. 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode: > On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: > > Time to correct some facts. > The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate > effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. > ... > > Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got > Andrew’s point, too. > > Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC > subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard. > > A./ > > >
Re: Translating the standard
On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. ... Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too. Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard. A./
RE: Translating the standard
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: > > Time to correct some facts. > The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate > effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. > National bodies are always welcome to try to transpose and translate an ISO > standard. But unless this is done by the ISO Sub-committee > (SC2 here) itself, this is not a long-term solution. This was almost 15 years > ago. I should know, I have been project editor for 10646 since > October 2000 (I started as project editor in 1997 for part-2, and been > involved in both Unicode and SC2 since 1990). Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too. > > Now to some alternative facts: > >Since ISO has made of standards a business, all prior versions are removed > >from the internet, > >so that they donʼt show up even in that list (which Iʼd used to grab a free > >copy, just to check > > the differences). Because if they had public archives of the free > > standards, not having any > >for the pay standards would stand out even more. > >This is why if you need an older version for reference, you need to find a > >good soul in > > the organization, who will be so kind to make a copy for you in the > > archives at the > > headquarters. > > OK, yes, the old versions are removed from the ISO site. Andrew has probably > easier access to older versions than you through BSI. > He has been involved directly in SC2 work for many years. The 2003 version is > completely irrelevant now anyway and again was not > done by the SC, there was never a project editor for a French version of > 10646. Call him whatever, how can a project thrive without a head? I think relevance is not the only criterium in evaluating a translation. The most important would probably be usefulness. Older versions are an appropriate means to get in touch with Unicode, as discussed when some old core specs were proposed on this list. > > >The last published French version of ISO/IEC 10646 — to which you > >contributed — is still available on > > Patrickʼs site: > > > >http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm > > The only live part of that page is the code chart and does not correspond to > the 1064:2003 itself (they are in fact Unicode 5.0 charts, > however close to 10646:2003 and its first 2 amendments), I am not sure the > original 10646:2003 (F), and the 2 translated amendments > (1 and 2) are available anywhere and are totally obsolete today anyway. Only > Canada and/or Afnor may still have archived versions. Given that for each time some benevolent people have their nameslist translation ready for print, they have to pay the tool and the fonts — just plainly disgusting. No wonder once you get such a localized Code Charts edition printed out in PDF, it has everlasting value! > > >(Iʼd noticed that the contributorsʼ list has slightly shrinked without being > >able to find out why.) > > The Code Charts have not been produced, however (because there is actually > > no > > redactor‐in‐chief, as already stated, and also because of budget cuts the > > government is not in > > a position to pay the non‐trivial amount of money asked for by Unicode for > > use of the fonts > > and/or [just trying to be as precise as I can this time| the owner of the > > tooling needed). > > A bunch of speculation here, never was a 'redactor-in-chief' for French > version, Unicode never asked for money because first of all > it does not own the tool (it is licensed by the tool owner who btw does this > work as a giant goodwill gesture, based on the money received > and the amount of work required to get this to work). Shame! Unicode should manage to get the funding — no problem for Apple! (but for Microsoft who had to fire many employees) — so that the developer is fully paid and rewarded. Why has Unicode no unlimited license? Because of the stinginess of those corporate members that have plenty of money to waste. I’ll save that off‐topic rant but without ceasing to insist that he must be paid, fully paid and paid back and paid in the future, the more as the Code Charts are now printed annually and grow bigger and bigger. It’s really up to the Consortium to gather the full license fee from their corporate members for the English version and any other interested locale. Unicode’s claim of mission encompasses logically making available for free as many localized Code Charts and whatever else so far as benevolent people translate the sources. Shouldn’t that have been clear from the beginning on? > In a previous message you also made some speculation about Apple role or > possibility that have no relationship with reality. > > >Having said that, I still believe that all ISO standards should have a > >French version, shouldnʼt they? > > You are welcome to contribute to that. Good luck though. > > On a side note, I have been working with the
Re: Unicode 11.0 and 12.0 Cover Design Art
Dear Andre, Please encourage her and other artists to make a submission. The judges take in many different perspectives, some more character oriented and some more abstract. All are welcome submissions. Thank you, Lisa On 3/12/2018 7:30 AM, Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote: surface gallery artists might like to submit entries. I showed the Unicode character set to the student and she
Re: A sketch with the best-known Swiss tongue twister
On 2018/03/09 21:24, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: There are definitely many dialects across Switzerland. I think that for *this* phrase it would be roughly the same for most of the population, with minor differences (eg 'het' vs 'hät'). But a native speaker like Martin would be able to say for sure. Yes indeed. The differences would be in the vowels (not necessarily minor, but your mileage may vary), and the difficulty of this tongue twister is very much on the consonants. Regards, Martin.
Re: A sketch with the best-known Swiss tongue twister
On 2018/03/10 20:26, philip chastney via Unicode wrote: I would make the following observations on terminology in practice: -- the newspapers in Zurich advertised courses in "Hoch Deutsch", for those who needed to deal with foreigners This should probably be written 'the newspapers in Zurich advertised courses in "Hochdeutsch", for foreigners'. Hochdeutsch (Standard German) is the language used in school, and in writing, and while there may be some specialized courses for Swiss people who didn't do well throughout grade school and want to catch up, that's not what the advertisements are about. -- in Luxemburg, the same language was referred to as Luxemburgish (or Letzeburgesch, which is Luxemburgish for "Luxemburgish ") (I forget what the Belgians called the language spoken in Ostbelgien) -- I was assured by a Luxemburgish-speaking car mechanic, with a Swiss German speaking wife, that the two languages (dialects?) were practically identical, except for the names of some household items I can't comment on this, because I don't remember to ever have listened to somebody speaking Letzeburgesch. in short, there seems little point in making distinctions which cannot be precisely identified in practice there appear to be significant differences between between High German and (what the natives call) Swiss German there are far fewer significant differences between Swiss German and the other spoken Germanic languages found on the borders of Germany In terms of linguistic analysis, that may be true. But virtually every native Swiss German speaker would draw a clear line between Swiss German (including the dialect(s) spoken in the upper Valais (Oberwallis), which are classified differently by linguists) and other varieties such as Swabian, Elsatian, Vorarlbergian, or even Letzeburgesch (which I have never seen classified as Allemannic)). The reason for this is not so much basic linguistics, but much more a) vocabulary differences ranging from food to administrative terms, and b) the fact that people hear many different Swiss dialects on Swiss Radio and Television, while that's not the case for the dialects from outside the borders. So in practice, Swiss German can be delineated quite precisely, but more from a sociolinguistic and vocabulary perspective than from a purely evolutionary/historic linguistic perspective. [Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.] Regards, Martin.