Re: Unicode certification - was RE: Dublin Conference/Standard Disclaimer
Marion Gunn wrote, It would not require the whole consortium to get involved in the minutiae of what David describes below (a couple of boys in a backroom could do it) via a sort of Tucows site set up, giving Unicode-friendly ratings, or even broad compliance with MES/BMP/whatever, with no guarantee of performance, beyond what David has indicated. Sounds like a real time-saver, or is that a real-time saver?:-) It sounds like Hobson's choice. But, I'll agree that it's a time saver. We can also agree that the whole consortia needn't involve itself in this kind of minutiae. Indeed, since this kind of Unicode certification is beyond the realm of TUC, the consortia needn't involve itself at all. The couple of boys in the back room could do it, and possibly figure out a way to do it profitably. On the other hand, if a certification program could represent revenue for TUC*, revenue which could be used to further the cause, then who better to judge Unicode compliance? Best regards, James Kass. * ...such as use of the logo in the certificate notice... - Original Message - From: Marion Gunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:21 AM Subject: Re: Unicode certification - was RE: Dublin Conference/Standard Disclaimer Arsa James Kass wrote: Any series of books which begins with the complete destruction of Earth is bound to be amusing, eh? Best regards, James Kass. Book 4 deals more with the creation of a new/alternative earth, James! In any case, as this is way off-topic, might I bring it back, via my earlier suggestion, as elaborated on by David Possin (below). It's perfectly acceptable for Unicode to confine itself to providing tables as touchpoints for those (its consortium members and others) actually making builds implementing principles set out in its publication. It would not require the whole consortium to get involved in the minutiae of what David describes below (a couple of boys in a backroom could do it) via a sort of Tucows site set up, giving Unicode-friendly ratings, or even broad compliance with MES/BMP/whatever, with no guarantee of performance, beyond what David has indicated. Sounds like a real time-saver, or is that a real-time saver?:-) mg David Possin wrote: It would be intereting and helpful to be able to find out if a product is Unicode-compliant before purchasing it. There are various test institutions out there that perform that work for other standards. I don't think it would be Unicode.org's responsibility to provide for the certification, to avoid membership issues, maybe it should create the certification requirements, though. I find myself wasting a lot of time figuring out if a third-party product or a certain version can handle Unicode and/or up to which version it is compliant to. I would like to be able to see a little Unicode logo on a box stamped with a release number, making it the manufacturer's responsibility to prove it. It works for operating system releases and other stuff, why not here as well? Dave = Dave Possin Globalization Consultant www.Welocalize.com -- Marion Gunn * E G T (Estab.1991) vox: +353-1-2839396 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Contae Átha Cliath; Éire
Re: The standard disclaimer
At 10:08 PM 7/24/2002 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: Tex Texin tex at i18nguy dot com wrote: Hall? Check? Re- ? Water? No, too late. John Hudson already won this round, for finding a way to bring it back on topic. (Turns to John and bows, Pat Morita style.) Congratulations, master. And for that we give him high - Barry Caplan www.i18n.com
Re: Unicode certification - was RE: Dublin Conference/Standard Disclaimer
Thanks for the Fish, Marion! We could meet at Milliway's and establish the back room setup there. The compliance guidelines could then be called Unicode's Guide to the Galaxy. A 100% compliant system receives the rating '42'. Non-compliant systems are processed by the Vogons. Yes, right now my check list for Unicode compliance when contacting 3rd parties looks more like this, the higher the number the better: 0. Uni-what? 1. I know somebody who can spell Unicode. 2. I can spell Unicode. 3. Yeah, the specs say it works but we never tested it. 4. We tried it once, seemed to work. 5. We use Java, that's Unicode, right? 6. Yes, but we had to let the developer go who did it when we downsized the last time, so I am not sure about the details. 7. Yes, and it is running with different languages in Europe. 8. Yes, and it is running with different languages in Asia. 9. Yes, it is running with several languages at once. 10. Yes, and we have bidi and complex scripting too. That is about as far as I get, I can only dream of being able to get details like David Starner described for compliance. `This must be Thursday,' said [Dave] to himself, sinking low over his beer, `I never could get the hang of Thursdays.' --- Marion Gunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arsa James Kass wrote: Any series of books which begins with the complete destruction of Earth is bound to be amusing, eh? Best regards, James Kass. Book 4 deals more with the creation of a new/alternative earth, James! In any case, as this is way off-topic, might I bring it back, via my earlier suggestion, as elaborated on by David Possin (below). It's perfectly acceptable for Unicode to confine itself to providing tables as touchpoints for those (its consortium members and others) actually making builds implementing principles set out in its publication. It would not require the whole consortium to get involved in the minutiae of what David describes below (a couple of boys in a backroom could do it) via a sort of Tucows site set up, giving Unicode-friendly ratings, or even broad compliance with MES/BMP/whatever, with no guarantee of performance, beyond what David has indicated. Sounds like a real time-saver, or is that a real-time saver?:-) mg David Possin wrote: It would be intereting and helpful to be able to find out if a product is Unicode-compliant before purchasing it. There are various test institutions out there that perform that work for other standards. I don't think it would be Unicode.org's responsibility to provide for the certification, to avoid membership issues, maybe it should create the certification requirements, though. I find myself wasting a lot of time figuring out if a third-party product or a certain version can handle Unicode and/or up to which version it is compliant to. I would like to be able to see a little Unicode logo on a box stamped with a release number, making it the manufacturer's responsibility to prove it. It works for operating system releases and other stuff, why not here as well? Dave = Dave Possin Globalization Consultant www.Welocalize.com -- Marion Gunn * E G T (Estab.1991) vox: +353-1-2839396 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Contae Átha Cliath; Éire = Dave Possin Globalization Consultant www.Welocalize.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/locales/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Re: Unicode certification - was RE: Dublin Conference/Standard Disclaimer
On 07/25/2002 09:30:18 AM David Possin wrote: Thanks for the Fish, Marion! We could meet at Milliway's and establish the back room setup there. The compliance guidelines could then be called Unicode's Guide to the Galaxy. A 100% compliant system receives the rating '42'. Non-compliant systems are processed by the Vogons. I suspect you're going to need some fairy cake to make this happen. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The standard disclaimer
1) I wish to go on record, once and for all, that any postings of mine to this (or any other) mailing list represent my own opinion and not that of my employer or employers either past, present, or future, or any other person natural or juridical, except by a happy coincidence. The email address from which I post has no effect on this disclaimer. 2) I stand behind my opinions. 3) If at any time anyone's feelings are hurt by a posting of mine, I am sorry for it, and will attempt resolution of the grievance by private email. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.
Re: The standard disclaimer
John Cowan wrote, However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding) What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?) Best regards, James Kass.
Re: The standard disclaimer
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote: However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding) What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?) Stretch? -Doug
Re: The standard disclaimer
At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: The standard disclaimer
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote:
However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding)
What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?)
Stretch?
Skid??
Combining?
(Ha! I'm even on topic!)
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Language must belong to the Other -- to my linguistic community
as a whole -- before it can belong to me, so that the self comes to its
unique articulation in a medium which is always at some level
indifferent to it. - Terry Eagleton
Re: The standard disclaimer
John Hudson wrote: At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] subject: Re: The standard disclaimer James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote: However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding) What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?) Stretch? Skid?? Combining? Hall? Check? Re- ? Water? -- - Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCrafthttp://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -
Re: The standard disclaimer
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Tex Texin wrote: John Hudson wrote: At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] subject: Re: The standard disclaimer James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote: However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding) What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?) Stretch? Skid?? Combining? Hall? Check? Re- ? Water? -- - Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World - Wednesday, July 24, 2002 Depending on whether I'm at work or comuting, MARC = 1. MAchine Readable Cataloging, or, 2. Maryland Alliance of Rail Comuters. Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) It is not true that people stop pursuing their dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing their dreams. Adapted from a letter by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official views of any government or any agency of any. Addresses: Office: Phone: 202 707-9612; Fax: 202 707-0955; US mail: I.T.S. Sys.Dev.Gp.4, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20540-9334 U.S.A. Home: Phone: 301 946-7326; US mail: Box 291, Garrett Park, MD 20896.
Re: The standard disclaimer
Tex Texin tex at i18nguy dot com wrote: Hall? Check? Re- ? Water? No, too late. John Hudson already won this round, for finding a way to bring it back on topic. (Turns to John and bows, Pat Morita style.) Congratulations, master. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Re: The standard disclaimer
Marion Gunn wrote, You might enjoy a favourite of mine: _The HH Guide to the Galaxy_ (the 4th bk of the trilogy, specifically). Any series of books which begins with the complete destruction of Earth is bound to be amusing, eh? Best regards, James Kass.
Re: The standard disclaimer
Everyone prostrate and all together We are not worthy... Doug Ewell wrote: Tex Texin tex at i18nguy dot com wrote: Hall? Check? Re- ? Water? No, too late. John Hudson already won this round, for finding a way to bring it back on topic. (Turns to John and bows, Pat Morita style.) Congratulations, master. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California -- - Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCrafthttp://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -
