Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Click letters in ISO 639-3 and Registry (long)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:24 -0700

Hugh Paterson wrote:

> Are there other language names that are not using U+02BC MODIFIER
> LETTER APOSTROPHE which should be?

I count roughly 132 language subtag Description fields which include the
ASCII apostrophe. That includes the click languages already discussed,
as well as some cases like "Coeur d'Alene" and "Brooke's Point Palawano"
which appear to be real apostrophes and not apostrophe-letters. (that's
not to say they shouldn't be changed to U+2019, but.)

I don't know if I or anyone else is prepared for the challenge of
researching and updating 100 or more Description fields. Equally, I
don't know if it would be a mistake to fix U+02BC for the click
languages and not for the others.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Hugh Paterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:54:54 -0800

The apostrophe like character in ISO 639-3 [gel] should not be word-forming
http://unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Word_Boundaries (causing double click
behavior to fall short of selecting the whole word).

in the case of [gel], The ISO 639-3 website uses U+0027, while the
Ethnologue website uses U+2019. I brought this to the attention of the ISO
639-3 registrar some years ago (maybe 3). My point was that the published
names are not the same with respect to the encoding of characters outside
of the Latin charters [a-zA-Z]. And neither seem to respect the usage in
the script by speakers.
So based on the encoded character's behavior (Unicode attributes) I would
suggest that U+02BC be used here, not U+2019 or U+0027. I was told at the
time that U+0027 was used in ISO 639-3 to be ASCII compliant, while
Ethnologue could make its own choices.

- Hugh

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:11:54 -0700

With respect, that’s one subtag. Can we make similarly quick and accurate decisions about the other 100 or so? If you can, that’d be great; post your findings to the list and we can discuss them.

We know that usage by Ethnologue and 639-3 of apostrophes and other non–Latin-1 characters doesn’t necessary match the spelling we would think, or each other. It’s the same problem as with the click letters. We know this because Ethnologue and 639-3 consider these to be “display issues” and not character or name identity issues. It may simply have come down to what somebody’s font did and didn’t support N years ago. (That may be where the perception came from that Unicode didn’t support click letters until 2004.)

Fortunately, we have an opportunity to fix the 639-3 issue with click letters. I’d have to check, though, whether they would be similarly amenable to changing 100 names with apostrophes.

From: Hugh Paterson 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 17:54
To: Doug Ewell 
Cc: ietf-languages ; ISO639-3 
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Click letters in ISO 639-3 and Registry (long)

The apostrophe like character in ISO 639-3 [gel] should not be word-forming http://unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Word_Boundaries (causing double click behavior to fall short of selecting the whole word).

in the case of [gel], The ISO 639-3 website uses U+0027, while the Ethnologue website uses U+2019. I brought this to the attention of the ISO 639-3 registrar some years ago (maybe 3). My point was that the published names are not the same with respect to the encoding of characters outside of the Latin charters [a-zA-Z]. And neither seem to respect the usage in the script by speakers.

So based on the encoded character's behavior (Unicode attributes) I would suggest that U+02BC be used here, not U+2019 or U+0027. I was told at the time that U+0027 was used in ISO 639-3 to be ASCII compliant, while Ethnologue could make its own choices.

- Hugh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

---

From: Mark Davis ☕️ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:14:32 +0100

​We should not hurry with the apostrophe, because it is a material issue
whether to use U+2019 vs U+02BC, which may depend on the language. Any
decision should not be rushed.

We've had some experience with this issue in CLDR. I don't have time now,
but can go into it later. As far as breaking behavior: neither U+2019 vs
U+02BC break when between letters. They do exhibit different trailing
behavior, except where customized per language.

Mark

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:32:52 +0000

Decisions should be as accurate as possible; quickness is optional, as this is not a matter of urgency. Make a list though.

> On 28 Feb 2018, at 02:11, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:36:33 +0000

I agree with Mark.

There is a big issue with 02BC, actually. In real life it’s not possible to make use of it with it being identical in shape to 2019. In editions of Alice, The Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, and The Hobbit in Hawaiian, and of Alice in other Polynesian languages, the glottal 02BC has to exist side by side with smart single and double quotes in reported speech. It is intolerably uncomfortable for native speakers to read such texts if 02BC is 100% the same size of the quotation marks.

I’ll write a UTR about this typographic matter one of these days.

Michael

> On 28 Feb 2018, at 08:14, Mark Davis ☕️ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> ​We should not hurry with the apostrophe, because it is a material issue whether to use U+2019 vs U+02BC, which may depend on the language. Any decision should not be rushed.
> 
> We've had some experience with this issue in CLDR. I don't have time now, but can go into it later. As far as breaking behavior: neither U+2019 vs U+02BC break when between letters. They do exhibit different trailing behavior, except where customized per language.
> 
> Mark
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:26:23 -0500

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

There is a big issue with 02BC, actually. In real life it’s not possible to
> make use of it with it being identical in shape to 2019. In editions of
> Alice, The Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, and The Hobbit in Hawaiian, and of
> Alice in other Polynesian languages, the glottal 02BC has to exist side by
> side with smart single and double quotes in reported speech. It is
> intolerably uncomfortable for native speakers to read such texts if 02BC is
> 100% the same size of the quotation marks.
>

Note that Hawaiian uses 02BB, the high-six shape, for its glottal stop, not
02BC, the high-nine shape.  This is also true in Samoan since 2012; other
Polynesian languages accept either shape or leave the letter out
altogether.  The IPA characters ʕ ʔ are graphically speaking the left and
right letter apostrophes, exaggerated for legibility; their phonetic
interpretations reflect the use of the apostrophes for transliteration of
Arabic ayin and alef.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
As we all know, civil libertarians are not the friskiest group around --
comes from  forever being on the qui vive for the sound of jack-booted
fascism coming down the pike.           --Molly Ivins