Lang Gérard scripsit: > 0-Let me suggest that we should adopt a precise, uniform and recognized > terminology when discussing about transformations between languages > and/or scripts. As far as I can tell, we are currently using the terms "transcription", "transliteration", "romanization", "language" (except that we do not require a language community to be large), and "script" in the same senses as UNGEGN. We have not used the broader terms "transformation" (meaning translation, transcription, or transliteration) and "conversion" (meaning transcription or transliteration), but they are reasonable additions to the toolkit. The term "translation" is not relevant to our work. We also use a different taxonomy of scripts, dividing them into alphabets, abjads, abugidas, syllabaries, and logosyllabaries: see http://www.unicode.org/glossary for terse definitions, or Section 6.1 of the Unicode Standard for detailed explanations (available online at http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch06.pdf . -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. --Greg Baker _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.