Duplicate Busters: Survey #2
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 3 23:56:23 CEST 2008
Doug, I do think in this case we should render the various spellings--with, without diacritic marks--in this case.> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:> > > I do **NOT** agree with the position that removing diacritial marks > > would be "slightly different typography". It is a difference in > > spelling, much the same as differences in spelling that you excluded > > from your list ["(such as Kirghiz vs. Kyrgyz, or Dhivehi vs. Divehi)"] > > and thus want to keep as multiple names.> > Kent is right here, and I phrased that poorly. Of course, the presence > or absence of diacritical marks may (depending on language and writing > system) represent a change in spelling, or even meaning (Spanish 'ano' > vs. 'a?o').> > What I meant to point out was that diacritical marks are sometimes > removed, not as an intentional change in spelling, but rather as a > typographical convenience, or out of concern that the correct character > won't be available or rendered correctly. This may or may not be > justified given the circumstances. However if we can render these marks correctly then we should provide a spelling with them as well as Romanized spellings--all alternatives (if the spelling looks different from what I am used to seeing I get confused; I do not get so confused if I see two or three spellings and one looks exactly--marks and all (or absence of marks if I am used to browsers that do not render them)--like what I am used to seeing.> > --> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 --C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages