VS: VS: The scope of Unicode (from Re: How can my research become implemented in a standardized manner?)
Erkki I Kolehmainen
eik at iki.fi
Sat Oct 24 12:56:37 CDT 2015
You have certainly missed the point. I mentioned CLDR and the practical translation problems that we encounter with it, because Unicode has been exceptionally successful in activating people to work with it. You seem to know of the working of the National Bodies even less than you do of CLDR. To my knowledge. there is no NB that has the resource (or even the will) to do what you expect them to do. You cannot address this problem unless you have extremely deep pockets and are prepared to fund the operation of the various National Bodies (which probably could not accept this funding anyway) who have had to abandon active participation in several areas that they have deemed important in the past. (That is partially due to the hyper drive by ISO of OSI that turned out to be a catastrophic fiasco.)
On my part, I refrain from addressing this subject area any further on the public list.
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Lähettäjä: William_J_G Overington [mailto:wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com]
Lähetetty: 24. lokakuuta 2015 16:10
Vastaanottaja: eik at iki.fi; unicode at unicode.org; rick at unicode.org
Aihe: Re: VS: The scope of Unicode (from Re: How can my research become implemented in a standardized manner?)
Erkki I. Kolehmainen wrote:
> First of all, you have never paid any attention to the formidable problems of getting vetted translations of whatever proposed (or to be ---) standard sentences of yours. You have admitted that you are not at all familiar with CLDR, but the people who have worked on CLDR are fully aware of the problems of getting agreed to localized expressions for all kinds of items.
I wrote within
<http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2015-m10/0181.html> http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2015-m10/0181.html ,
which is the post to which you replied, the following text.
I said that there would be a standardized list of preset sentences, set out in English as International Standards are produced in English and that the National Standardization Body for each country would translate the list into the language of its country and produce a list to convert the codes to the local language.
Now maybe I am missing some issue here, so if the above suggested process is regarded as problematic I would like to address any problems that are felt to exist.
> The value of deposit at the British Library seems questionable at best. Furthermore, if published means published on this list, it has no value whatsoever, since it does not mean any peer review and acceptance, which – as you well know – isn’t forthcoming.
> Furthermore, if published means published on this list, ...
It does not.
In the context of this thread of the pdf document being published, published means published as in United Kingdom Law about Legal Deposit.
In the particular situation here, published refers to the fact that the pdf document was published in my family webspace by me, the publisher of the document.
I am the publisher of the document and also the author of the document.
> Incidentally, the standards body that has had considerable dealings with some of the kinds of problems that you claim to be researching is ETSI Human Factors. You might want to approach them in order to get any support.
Thank you for that information.
24 October 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode