[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

Sean M. Burke sburke at cpan.org
Wed Apr 9 15:36:56 CEST 2003

At 03:24 PM 2003-04-09 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > # 3.7
> > # script
> > # A set of graphic characters used for the written
> > # form of one or more languages.  (ISO/IEC 10646-
> > # 1) (fr 3.6 écriture)
>[...]My point is that simply because some candidate "something" fits this 
>definition isn't sufficient to claim it as a *script*. Otherwise I could 
>come claiming I needed script codes for the English alphabet, the French 
>alphabet, the German alphabet, ... ad naseum.

Yes, ISO likes defining things.  Really TOUGH, RIGOROUS, FORMAL 
definitions.  UNG!!

And the result can often end up sort of like a car accident: one feels 
oddly compelled to slow down and look for a second.
But don't take it too seriously.

I'd settle for a listing and some common sense, over a definition any day.

Thought: So there's ISO-9000 compliance.  What would IETF-9000 compliance 
be?  Donuts in the break room?
I want those donuts.

Sean M. Burke    http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list