Re: [Ltru] Re: UTF-8

It seems that a third alternative would be to give the sources
a hint that they might want to do a little cleanup. But I
guess somebody has thought about that, and somebody has tried it.

Regards,    Martin.

At 13:50 06/09/18, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Frank said we should just use what the source uses, but officially, the soure in most cases still is paper.
>
>As much for the archives as for Martin:
>
>The question of "use what the source uses" is a long-standing, divisive one.  The sources for the 4646 Registry were electronic: code lists found on the home pages of the ISO MA's and on the UNSD site.  Sometimes these appeared inconsistent, with themselves and particularly with each other, on things like apostrophe usage.  Sometimes they yielded bizarre results, like the acute accent (U+00B4) used in the name Gwich'in.
>
>There are WG members (and ietf-languages contributors) who feel very strongly that the Description fields in the Registry must match the source standards exactly, to enable automated cross-referencing and generally to avoid arbitrariness.  Then there are WG members (and ietf-languages contributors) who feel equally strongly that we should be able to improve on the names, either typographically or to improve clarity and avoid ambiguity.  These two groups are at polar opposites and the only way to satisfy both is to admit both Descriptions, even when the end result seems preposterous.
>
>--
>Doug Ewell
>Fullerton, California, USA
>http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru