From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 13:53:56 CST
At 18:44 +0100 2005-11-22, Andreas Prilop wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> German was not, in Roman type, normally written with the long s.
>
>It /could/ and it was also written with "long s" as
>Asmus Freytag already pointed out. Not always, but it could.
I *said* "was not NORMALLY written".
> > I really don't have time today to look these up.
>>
>> Fine, Andreas, go to the Wikipedia
>
>So you expect other people to follow the references but you yourself
>refuse to do the same?
Well, it's not my job to go and do the work required for you to prove
to the RA-JAC that there are grounds to add a code for the variants
you have suggested. I have taken time out to describe the reasons
Latf and Latg were added. To my knowledge, no similar reasons apply
for Arabic, apart from font classification, which is not what ISO
15924 is for.
>When an HTML document is encoded in UTF-8, we can specify only by
> lang=zh-CN or lang=zh-TW
>whether a program should display it in Simplified or
>Traditional Chinese typeface.
RFC 3066 allows greater precision.
>Mozilla-based browsers do this. A better, more logical way is by
> lang=zh-Hans or lang=zh-Hant
>I'm not sure whether the latest Mozilla browsers already support this.
I do not know if this is "better" or "more logical", but RFC permits this
>It should likewise be possible to specify by
> lang=fa-**** lang=ur-****
>whether a Persian or Urdu text should be displayed in Naskh or
>Nastaliq style by the browser.
Should this be permissable "in principle" or "in theory" or is there
a genuine requirement to make this distinction apart from your
assertion?
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 14:01:45 CST