[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 Ã©criture)
>[...]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
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