At 08:10 -0700 2007-08-06, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Everson
>
>
>> >The ballot on "Blissymbols" is ongoing.
>>
>> When was it issued, and when does it end?
>
>It was issued late last week. It ends after every JAC member has
>submitted their ballot.

No time limit? Wow.

> > > One of the questions on the ballot is:
> > > ___ I am in favour of the indigenous
> > >name "<a symbol like a reversed Z>".
>> >
>>
>> An odd question. How can one be "in favour of"
>> the name. Does this mean "in favour of the
>> transcription"?
>
>No; it means "in favour of adopting the string indicated as the
>value for the "indigenous name" field in ISO 639 tables. (These are
>not currently published.)

I think <a symbol like a reversed Z> is pretty good really.

>If the values recorded for indigenous name are ASCII strings, then
>the only reasonable non-null value in this case is "[no ASCII
>representation]".

Or <a symbol like a reversed Z>

>If the values recorded are strings using any Latin characters in ISO
>10646, then if there is some Latin approximation that could be used;
>otherwise, the only reasonable non-null value would be "[no
>representation in ISO 10646 Latin characters]". (Similar if the
>character inventory is ISO 8859-1.)

Or <a symbol like a reversed Z>

>If the values can be in the indigenous script, then at present the
>only reasonable non-null value would be "[no representation is ISO
>10646 characters]".

Or <a symbol like a reversed Z>

>That's how things seem to me. I think it's acceptable to leave this
>field empty, as Rebecca suggests.

Unless <a symbol like a reversed Z>
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com