 |
 |
Jon Stroop wrote: > It's not just about whether or not to display a given version of the > title, but how to display it, i.e. left to right, left anchored or > right to left, right anchored, fonts, etc. That is inherent in the Unicode range. The font renderer of your software has rules for the display of Unicode characters. There is even a way to encode what to do with texts that make use of a combination of left to right and right to left, called the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/). > > Also, I wonder if there isn't some judgment involved in determining > the script. If a title were mostly in a particular script, and a user > would first and foremost need to understand that script to understand > the content of the resource, wouldn't it be most useful to say that > field is in that script? It doesn't fit well with /my/ literalist > tendencies, but from a user perspective is the script for > http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/223938445 anything other than Chinese? I think we've reached the line here between script and language. The language is definitely Chinese, the script is a mixture of Chinese and Latin. One title is a translation of the other. I don't know which from this display -- they could be parallel titles, but in the case of translation, it's the language that is of interest. The discussion of scripts referred to representations of the same language using different scripts. In that case, script is the issue, not language. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------