On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:40:21 +0000, Richard Wordingham" wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:17:23 +0100 (CET) > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > But ‘script’ for ‘writing system’ looks > > good to me, and certainly to all people familiar with Unicode thanks > > to some training. > > The concept of an English *script* as opposed to a French *script* is a > bad idea.
Today, when talking about the Latin writing system as referred to in TUS (good idea to point to the relevant section!), it makes no more sense to think in terms of national subsets. Globalization brings the necessity of using universal Latin keyboard layouts, one (or several, e.g. ergonomical) per country, each one optimized for *all* the national languages but mutually identical in extension. Covering *all* Latin characters regardless of their frequency (and of their eventual deprecation), is a working principle. IMHO implementers should refrain from leading users by the arm. That glottal stops are present on the German T3 keyboard, was already mentioned in some way. We never can insist enough upon the fact that Germany, where no glottal stop is used, has a standardized keyboard enabling users to write *all* official languages that are written in Latin script. I see no reason (well, I'm back wrtiting about) that officials refuse to update their practice. They don't, in fact. It's just a database and a printer somewhere in Northwest Territories. Without these two, everybody would be pleased to install an up-to-date keyboard layout and input a fine birth certificate for everybody regardless of what letters of the official Latin script would be in. > I have recently had occasion to contrast writing systems in > the Thai script (for Thai and for Pali respectively), and also to > contrast writing systems in the Hebrew script (for Yiddish, and for two > systems for Hebrew). > > > Thanks to the Unicode Consortium! > > TUS 8.0 Section 6.1 Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the concepts are > quite distinct. The concept of "the writing system of the Latin script" for example, as opposed to "the way a particular language is written", for example Chipewyan? When I was talking about me, I meant 'script' as in 'Latin script.' Chipewyan is written in Latin script, Bamanankan is written in Latin script, English is written in Latin script: Either all these three statements are obvious, or none of them is; in any case, it is no longer allowed to raise one eyebrow (emoji needed) at the sight of a glottal stop to put into a birth certificate, into a passport, or on a credit card. Go buy new database hosts and new printers! In case no other argument is convincing, here is another one: That will boost national IT companies, vendors, and technicians. All good! Hopeful, Marcel
