I really doubt that -- transliteration schemes vary hugely, far more than variations between country.<br><br>mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/24/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Cowan</b> <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">
cowan@ccil.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Mark Davis scripsit:<br><br>> I didn't understand your message. What I was saying was that
<br>> romanization is more important, typically, than country. That is,<br>> for fallbacks, the best formulation would have been to put the<br>> transliteration system before the country, because it typically makes
<br>> a much larger difference in the outcome.<br><br>Ah, I see. My response to that is that neither transliteration scheme<br>nor national variety is much of a barrier in general, and I doubt it<br>matters which one you put first. The language barrier is the biggest,
<br>followed by the script barrier (modulo some really oddball cases: I can<br>probably read a text in a language closely related to mine better than<br>my own language in a wholly unknown script). The exact transliteration
<br>scheme only becomes important when writing automatic transliterators.<br><br>--<br>When I'm stuck in something boring John Cowan<br>where reading would be impossible or (who loves Asimov too)<br>
rude, I often set up math problems for <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a><br>myself and solve them as a way to pass <a href="http://www.ccil.org/~cowan">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>
the time. --John Jenkins<br></blockquote></div><br>