On 11/07/2003 08:51, Philippe Verdy wrote:
On Friday, July 11, 2003 3:50 PM, Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I hope that what is fixed by Unicode is the name not
of two languages but of an extensible family of scripts.
I think you speak about family of languages?
Not really. A set of languages, but they are not all related in any way,
and many of them have more than one script or alphabet so this is not
really a property of the languages. Perhaps "set of alphabets" would be
a better way to put it.
Good luck with ISO language codes which does not even
define them, and contain many duplicate codes even in
the Alpha-2 space (he/iw, in/id), or unprecize codes
matching sometimes very imprecize families of languages
overlapping other language codes...
Until it is demonstrated that a language needs such fix
in Unicode support tables, ...
If necessary I can collect some data to demonstrate this, at least for
some languages.
... it's best to just say that these
fixes are needed for some recognized language codes and
that applications are allowed to add their own "fixes" or
language tailorings, and that the existing language
tailorings in Unicode databases are just non-normative
samples.
-- Philippe.
Agreed. But does Unicode actually treat them as non-normative samples?
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
