Language and script encoding standards

[Mark Davis]

I really doubt that -- transliteration schemes vary hugely, far more than
variations between country.

mark

On 7/24/06, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis scripsit:
>
> > I didn't understand your message. What I was saying was that
> > romanization is more important, typically, than country. That is,
> > for fallbacks, the best formulation would have been to put the
> > transliteration system before the country, because it typically makes
> > a much larger difference in the outcome.
>
> Ah, I see.  My response to that is that neither transliteration scheme
> nor national variety is much of a barrier in general, and I doubt it
> matters which one you put first.  The language barrier is the biggest,
> followed by the script barrier (modulo some really oddball cases: I can
> probably read a text in a language closely related to mine better than
> my own language in a wholly unknown script).  The exact transliteration
> scheme only becomes important when writing automatic transliterators.
>
> --
> When I'm stuck in something boring              John Cowan
> where reading would be impossible or            (who loves Asimov too)
> rude, I often set up math problems for          cowan at ccil.org
> myself and solve them as a way to pass          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> the time.      --John Jenkins
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20060724/dd4f169b/attachment.html