Kenneth Whistler wrote at 2:50 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
normalize, sort - repeat as necessary.
Multiply that times the number of independent researchers and separate
projects...
... and you get a thousand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 10:09 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
Dean A. Snyder asks,
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
it's default. It's only there when no
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 10:03 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean A. Snyder asks,
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
it's default.
At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
What you do now is transliterate Phoenician text into Hebrew or Latin.
Nobody plans to take away your rights and ability to continue
At 12:13 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 2:13 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
What you do now is transliterate
Title: RE: [BULK] - RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Dean Snyder
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 5:05 AM
Kenneth Whistler wrote at 2:50 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
One normalization script could be used any
Mike Ayers wrote at 11:13 AM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
Dean Snyder:
No, that is not the whole point - there is also the point
that 90% of our
work, which is done now by simple, default processes, would, all of a
sudden, require custom tailoring.
So what you're telling us is that
At 15:14 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
We have heard how many times that you already deal with multiple
competing encodings - Unicode, web Hebrew, transliteration, etc. It is you
who are ignoring the fact that killing the Phoenician proposal will not
change that.
But its approval will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 8:08 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
That's the
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
That's the question.
Since search engines like Google survive based on
Dean,
One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
normalize, sort - repeat as necessary.
Multiply that times the number of independent researchers and separate
projects...
... and you get a thousand different requirements, each of which
should be addressed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a crit :
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
That's the question.
Since search engines
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
You only make a response regarding Google; but that is only one of the
search engines; and it leaves issues with operating systems and database
engines still unanswered.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Tailoring
The entire report contains much useful information
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Dean A. Snyder wrote,
The issue is not what we CAN do; the issue is what will we be FORCED to
do that already happens right now by default in operating systems,
Google, databases, etc. without any end user fiddling?
The trend for such systems is to build in
Kenneth Whistler a écrit :
[on slow implementation of some collations by certain manufacturers and
service providers]
And the answer is to democratize the approach.
I agree on the ideal solution, it has independently been mentioned to
some large manufacturer's technical respresentative who
Ernest Cline wrote at 10:34 PM on Wednesday, May 12, 2004:
But the only example shown during this discussion has been the use
of Paleo-Hebrew for the tetragrammaton.
You may have missed my email about the side by side usage of Palaeo-
Hebrew and Jewish Hebrew in the Dead Sea scrolls and other
(John Cowan made this basic point, but I can't help making it more
forcefully.)
This whole discussion of interleaved sorting has veered off into the
ditch. Now maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention (quite
possible, as I pretty much lost patience with the whole Phoenician
thread a
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the actual usage pattern for multi-lingual sorts?
One of the most actual usage would be for the creation of book indexes
referencing page in the book where words are used. Or plain-text search in a
large corpus of texts with various languages. Or for
At 22:58 -0800 2004-05-12, D. Starner wrote:
I've never seen a multi-script index; is there any real legacy
behavior here, besides computer programs which were forced to do
something?
In general, scripts are separated.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Title: Message
-Original Message-From: Mike Ayers
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai
and Lao in the default ordering.
No, it
wouldn't. That's not
an argument...
Hmmm? Are you
looking for some kind of
At 11:54 +0200 2004-05-13, Kent Karlsson wrote:
The burden of proof here is on who claims, not who disputes. WHY
would interleaving Thai and Lao make sense? Do all Thai read Lao,
and vice versa?
Good questions.
Because the Lao letters derive from the Thai letters, AND both are
basically
...
(The Thai letters in turn derive from the Khmer letters...
That's not correct.
Just to check that it is not just *my* imagination that is running wild... ;-)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Thai%20alphabet says:
History
The Thai alphabet is probably derived from the Old Khmer
D. Starner wrote:
I've never seen a multi-script
index; is there any real legacy behavior here,
besides computer programs which
were forced to do something?
I've seen plenty of multi script indexes and almost all of them had
seperate divisions for each script.
There are multi-platform database
D. Starner wrote:
If the input is in
multiple (Indic) scripts, and let's assume that the audience
(which may be a single person just asking for an sorted list
of his/her files) can read the Indic scripts used, it may be
helpful to interleave. (But I will not push this.)
Now let's asume
If the input is in
multiple (Indic) scripts, and let's assume that the audience
(which may be a single person just asking for an sorted list
of his/her files) can read the Indic scripts used, it may be
helpful to interleave. (But I will not push this.)
Now let's asume that
Rich Gillam of Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader wrote
at 11:41 AM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
This whole discussion of interleaved sorting has veered off into the
ditch. Now maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention (quite
possible, as I pretty much lost patience with
This whole discussion of interleaved sorting has veered off into the
ditch. Now maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention (quite
possible, as I pretty much lost patience with the whole Phoenician
thread a LONG time ago)
Probably, I would hazard a guess, because you are not a user of
Title: RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Dean Snyder
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:36 AM
Rich Gillam of Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list
reader wrote
at 11:41 AM on Thursday, May 13, 2004
Dean Snyder wrote:
Mike Ayers wrote at 1:04 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:
Do you expect it to happen often enough that hacking together a Perl
script to do it once isn't going to get the job done?
Yes.
One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
normalize, sort
One normalization script could be used any number of times. Clip,
normalize, sort - repeat as necessary.
Multiply that times the number of independent researchers and separate
projects...
... and you get a thousand different requirements, each of which
should be addressed with
Dean A. Snyders asks,
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
it's default. It's only there when no other instructions exist.
Another thing to remember about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean A. Snyders asks,
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
it's default. It's only there when no other instructions exist.
And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
default ordering.
No, it wouldn't.
That's not an argument...
Or to interleave, in the default ordering, the Indic scripts
covered by ISCII.
No, it wouldn't!
Nor is that...
Any pecularities could be handled in
Mike Ayers scripsit:
I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad Hebrew
would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is
it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be able to
create and use a nondefault sort order?
I see
Title: RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Kent Karlsson
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:51 AM
And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
default ordering.
No, it wouldn't.
That's
Mike Ayers asked:
I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad Hebrew
would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is
it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be able to
create and use a nondefault sort order?
They
PROTECTED]Subject: RE: interleaved
ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
...
I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad
Hebrew would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it
again: is it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be
able
? From: Jony Rosenne
Mike Ayers wrote:
...
is it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be
able to create and use a nondefault sort order?
I don't think so. I think they would require some computer expert
to set it up for them.
If they are experts in their
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Full collation between Phoenician and Hebrew is not really needed:
the texts are part of separate corpus, and the original documents
do not mix these scripts in the same words.
Remember that Phoenician in this context includes Palaeo-Hebrew, an
we *have* seen
At 21:34 -0400 2004-05-12, John Cowan wrote:
Remember that Phoenician in this context includes Palaeo-Hebrew, an
we *have* seen evidence that this script is mixed with Square in the
same text, though not in the same word.
Remember that we have likewise seen Greek text with the Palaeo-Hebrew
text
[Original Message]
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Full collation between Phoenician and Hebrew is not really needed:
the texts are part of separate corpus, and the original documents
do not mix these scripts in the same words.
Remember that Phoenician in
On Mon, 10 May 2004 16:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Stefan Persson wrote:
Mike Ayers wrote:
I have not seen
katakana joined to kanji (or romaji), and suspect that such does not occur.
There are a few cases, e.g. (So-Ren: Soviet Union), but that
At 11:45 +0200 2004-05-10, Kent Karlsson wrote:
We do actually mix scripts. Hiragana and Katakana are interleaved.
Mark
And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
default ordering.
No, it wouldn't.
Or to interleave, in the default ordering, the Indic scripts covered by
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Japanese is different; the users all use both scripts all the time.
And there are occurences in Japanese of Katakana suffixes or particules added to
Latin or Han words, notably to people names and trademarks... I've seen many
texts where Han and Katakana
Title: RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:09 AM
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Japanese is different; the users all use both scripts all the time
Mike Ayers writes:
You mean hiragana, not katakana, and kanji, not Han, I believe.
Katakana are used for transliteration, and are not typically joined to
kanji, whereas hiragana are ubiquitously joined to kanji, as Japanese
particles do not ordinarily have kanji representation. I have
At 12:12 -0700 2004-05-10, Mike Ayers wrote:
But all this leads me to finally ask: what does script mean? It
seems clear to me that although the term has been used throughout
the Phoenician debate, not everyone is using it the same way. I
know that there is a definition of script that is
Mike Ayers wrote:
I have not seen
katakana joined to kanji (or romaji), and suspect that such does not occur.
There are a few cases, e.g. (So-Ren: Soviet Union), but that could
also be written as two kanji as (which is however very rare in
modern Japanese).
I believe, but am not
Stefan Persson wrote:
Mike Ayers wrote:
I have not seen
katakana joined to kanji (or romaji), and suspect that such does not occur.
There are a few cases, e.g. ã½é£ (So-Ren: Soviet Union), but that could
also be written as two kanji as èé£ (which is however very rare in
modern
49 matches
Mail list logo
