On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts crash
even
before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project succeeded?
Essentially because both the Japanese and the Chinese attempts were
conceived of as comm
al audiences.
I fail to understand why increasing complexity decreases the need to be
widely understood. Recurrent threads show how slowly Unicode education
is spreading among English native speakers; others incidentally complained
about Unicode‐educational issues in African countries. *Not* translating
tive today.
>
> > Recurrent threads show how slowly Unicode education
> > is spreading among English native speakers; others incidentally complained
> > about Unicode‐educational issues in African countries. *Not* translating
> > the Standard — in whatever way — wonʼt hel
On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
wrote:
>
> Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English
> may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale.
Agreed. Implementers will already understand English; you can’t write computer
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:41:35 -0800, Ken Whistler wrote:
>
>
> On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts
> > crash even
> > before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project succeeded?
>
> Essentially bec
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:39:53 +, Alastair Houghton wrote:
>
> On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English
> > may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale.
>
> Agre
On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
wrote:
>
> Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version
No it is not, and never has been.
Why don't you check your facts before making misleading statements to this list?
> or at least, it should have an official French version
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:00:16 +, Andrew West wrote:
>
> On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
> wrote:
> >
> > Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version
>
> No it is not, and never has been.
>
> Why don't you check your facts before making misleading statement
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
2018-03-12 16:39 GMT+09:00 Alastair Houghton via Unicode :
> On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English
>> may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale.
>
> Agreed. Imp
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 transl
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 N
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
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. S
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
On 13 Mar 2018, at 02:49, Yifán Wáng via Unicode
mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> wrote:
Somewhat digressing from the topic, but I'd like to make some comment
on this part as I smell a persistent myth among some, hopefully small number
of, software engineers in Anglosphere.
First, the fact that co
On 3/5/2018 9:03 AM, suzuki toshiya via Unicode wrote:
I have a question; if some people try to make a
translated version of Unicode
And to add to Asmus' response, folks on the list should understand that
even with the best of effort, the concept of a "translated version of
Unicode" is a nea
There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt"
significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and
various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and instead
of translating all, the concepts are summarized, reexplained, but still
gi
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt"
> significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and
> various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and ins
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> * the core text of the standard (section 3 about conformance and requirements
> is the first thing to adapt).
> There's absolutely no need however to do that as a pure translation, it can
> be rewritten and presented
> wit
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:27:06 +0100 (CET)
Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a
> translation, be it only the Nameslist.
For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An
alternative would be paragraph identification
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:03:28 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a
> > translation, be it only the Nameslist.
>
> For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An
> alternative would be paragraph identif
For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea.
As long as there are people interested in maintaining the translation,
identifying deltas and easily translating just the deltas would NOT be
difficult, however. Modern computer aided translation tools all use
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 04:25:53 -0500, Elsebeth Flarup via Unicode wrote:
>
> For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea.
>
[…]
>
> There are other reasons to not do this.
I assume that the reasons you are thinking of, are congruent with those th
On 08/03/18 19:33, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:05:06PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > https://www.amazon.fr/Unicode-5-0-pratique-Patrick-Andries/dp/2100511408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206989878&sr=8-1
>
> You’re linking to the wrong one of
25 matches
Mail list logo
