Subject: [Ltru] N'Ko again

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:31:26 -0800

The draft 639-3 tables show "N'Ko" with a straight ASCII apostrophe. 
The current Registry has "Description: N&#x2019;Ko" and I believe it got 
that way through registration on the part of ietf-languages.

For 4646bis, is it correct to leave "N&#x2019;Ko" in the Registry, but 
add "N'Ko" with the ASCII apostrophe, and make that one first in the 
order due to its role as 639-3 reference name?

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Don Osborn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:16:44 +0530

2019 being the hex code for headache? Either way it might make sense to list both, in the manner you suggest. No telling if someone might resort to 02BC (=migrane?), but maybe we don't have to go there. N' sort of functions as a unit in Latin transcriptions of Manding (meaning "I," 1st person singular), not standardized for the kind of apostrophe used, AFAIK, even when used as part of the name N'Ko.

Don 

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 2:01 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: [Ltru] N'Ko again

The draft 639-3 tables show "N'Ko" with a straight ASCII apostrophe. 
The current Registry has "Description: N&#x2019;Ko" and I believe it got that way through registration on the part of ietf-languages.

For 4646bis, is it correct to leave "N&#x2019;Ko" in the Registry, but add "N'Ko" with the ASCII apostrophe, and make that one first in the order due to its role as 639-3 reference name?

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:02:14 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> The current Registry has "Description: N&#x2019;Ko" and I believe it
> got that way through registration on the part of ietf-languages.

Let the ISO 639 folks figure out how to get their descriptions right -
that's not the job of the subtag registry or the subtag review list.

You owe me two cents ;->

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:23:23 -0800

Don Osborn <dzo at bisharat dot net> wrote:

> 2019 being the hex code for headache? Either way it might make sense 
> to list both, in the manner you suggest. No telling if someone might 
> resort to 02BC (=migrane?), but maybe we don't have to go there. N' 
> sort of functions as a unit in Latin transcriptions of Manding 
> (meaning "I," 1st person singular), not standardized for the kind of 
> apostrophe used, AFAIK, even when used as part of the name N'Ko.

Unicode doesn't appear to have a recommendation for N', but there is a 
character for 'N (U+0149) that is compatibility-equivalent to U+02BC 
U+006E.  That might be cause for concern since the ietf-languages group 
got the version with U+2019 into the Registry.

> that's not the job of the subtag registry or the subtag review list.

There's no question in my mind that we need to use the spelling from ISO 
639-3, which is the one with the ASCII apostrophe.  The question is 
whether to keep the one that ietf-languages added.

> You owe me two cents ;->

Get in line, I owe everybody two cents.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:30:13 -0500

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> U+006E.  

As the compatibility decomposition indicates, that is 'n, not 'N.
It's present in Unicode solely for backward compatibility with some
ancient Teletex standard that thought the Afrikaans indefinite article,
conventionally written 'n, should have a single character.

UTN 27, which is about anomalies in character names, notes that this
character is not considered a single *letter*.  In any case it has
nothing to do with N'Ko.

-- 
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell,         John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are absolutely     [email-masked]
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be
on the Cross Bronx Expressway.          --Alan Feuer, NYTimes, 2002-09-20

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:39:47 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> Unicode doesn't appear to have a recommendation for N', but there is 
>> a character for 'N (U+0149) that is compatibility-equivalent to 
>> U+02BC U+006E.
>

Well, and apparently I couldn't read the word SMALL in the character 
name anyway.  Noted, and thank you for the correction.  Don had written 
something about the sequence N' and I barked up the wrong tree.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:01:26 +0900

At 17:31 07/01/21, Doug Ewell wrote:
>The draft 639-3 tables show "N'Ko" with a straight ASCII apostrophe. The current Registry has "Description: N&#x2019;Ko" and I believe it got that way through registration on the part of ietf-languages.
>

Fine with me. If we can avoid big discussions about which
variant to pick by listing both, I'm all for it.

Reagrds,    Martin.

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:41:21 -0800

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

>> For 4646bis, is it correct to leave "N&#x2019;Ko" in the Registry, 
>> but add "N'Ko" with the ASCII apostrophe, and make that one first in 
>> the order due to its role as 639-3 reference name?
>
> Fine with me. If we can avoid big discussions about which variant to 
> pick by listing both, I'm all for it.

Done.

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:57:24 -0000

+1

debbie 

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 22 January 2007 07:01
> To: Doug Ewell; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] N'Ko again
> 
> >The draft 639-3 tables show "N'Ko" with a straight ASCII 
> apostrophe. The current Registry has "Description: 
> N&#x2019;Ko" and I believe it got that way through 
> registration on the part of ietf-languages.
> >
> >For 4646bis, is it correct to leave "N&#x2019;Ko" in the 
> Registry, but add "N'Ko" with the ASCII apostrophe, and make 
> that one first in the order due to its role as 639-3 reference name?
>