Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Preparations for smart matching

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:59:53 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Frank Ellermann

> For Unicode mentioning the script makes sense, but for 8bit-
> charsets it should be implicit, excl. transliterations for
> the moment.

But keep in mind that if there is any possibility of the encoding of an
item being converted at any point between sender and receiver, then the
knowledge inherent in the original charset ID could be lost. If someone
sends a message to an online group using Big5 and the message gets
converted to Unicode when sent to some or all group members, then those
recipients don't benefit from whatever knowledge would be conveyed by
the fact that the data had originally been encded in Big5.

> That's why I want default scripts and a SHOULD NOT for cases
> like en-Latn-*.  The recommendation to tag wisely is a waste
> of time for software, it can't think.

I think these are valid ideas. (But then I would, having written about
the significance of default script in a paper a few years back.)

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:22:19 -0000

>But keep in mind that if there is any possibility of the encoding of an
item being converted at any point between sender
 >and receiver, then the knowledge inherent in the original charset ID could
be lost. If someone sends a message to an 
>online group using Big5 and the message gets converted to Unicode when sent
to some or all group members, then those 
>recipients don't benefit from whatever knowledge would be conveyed by the
fact that the data had originally been encded
>in Big5. 

A look at Shannon/Weaver and/or Scramms Mass communications models would be
helpful...  I believe you are refering to "semantic dissonance" and "noise"

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: 23 March 2005 06:00
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Preparations for smart matching

On

> For Unicode mentioning the script makes sense, but for 8bit- charsets 
> it should be implicit, excl. transliterations for the moment.

But keep in mind that if there is any possibility of the encoding of an item
being converted at any point between sender and receiver, then the knowledge
inherent in the original charset ID could be lost. If someone sends a
message to an online group using Big5 and the message gets converted to
Unicode when sent to some or all group members, then those recipients don't
benefit from whatever knowledge would be conveyed by the fact that the data
had originally been encded in Big5.

> That's why I want default scripts and a SHOULD NOT for cases like 
> en-Latn-*.  The recommendation to tag wisely is a waste of time for 
> software, it can't think.

I think these are valid ideas. (But then I would, having written about the
significance of default script in a paper a few years back.)

Peter Constable