LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  December 1990

TEI-L December 1990

Subject:

French characters, other 'special' characters

From:

Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981 <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 3 Dec 90 16:23:23 CST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

Jean Veronis adverts to a vexed problem of long standing, and one for
which the TEI does provide what I think is a good solution, which is in
fact documented in the current draft of the guidelines, though perhaps
not as clearly as it ought to be.  This note, too, will not be the clear
short tutorial JV asks for -- clarity, brevity, and accuracy oppose each
other fiercely when character sets come up.  But I can at least describe
the TEI version 1.0 solution and why it is what it is.
 
The background to the problems of French and other national characters
as well as other 'special' characters, is described in section 3.1 of
the guidelines, in particular 3.1.5 (problems in using any existing
character set for interchange) and 3.1.7 (methods now in use in various
schemes for representing characters not present in a given character set
or subset).
 
The specific character-set recommendations of the TEI in the current
draft (version 1.1 -- this is unchanged from 1.0) are in section 3.2,
and the specific passage Jean Veronis is looking for is in sections
3.2.2 and 3.2.3.  These say that for the present, at least, only
characters in the "ISO 646 subset" should be used for interchange of
documents intended to be fully TEI-conformant, and that SGML entity
references or a transliteration scheme should be used to represent any
characters of the text not present in the ISO 646 subset.
 
The list of standard character sets is not now connected to the rules
for TEI-conformant interchange, because in real life the sender and
receive do not control the mechanisms of their interchange and so cannot
guarantee that standard sets will arrive in a usable state.  Writing
System Declarations will be prepared for the standard and commonly used
character sets listed, and so will not need to be prepared by
individuals, but at present the only use of the writing system
declaration is to document a character set whether used locally or in
interchange, and to drive a packing/unpacking process which will replace
characters which don't travel well with corresponding entity
declarations, or replace entity declarations with the proper local
characters.  The draft does say that the WSD is not integrated into
the DTDs yet; it doesn't talk about driving the packer/unpacker.
 
The ISO 646 subset contains the following (non-national) characters
which do not commonly cause misinterpretation of the data when shipped
across networks, from ASCII to EBCDIC machines or vice versa, or across
national boundaries:
 
    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
    A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    " % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; < = > ? _
 
and space.
 
Transliteration schemes like the Beta code of the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae are thus legal in interchange (if they transcribe into the ISO
646 subset), but for French it is far better to use the publicly
documented SGML entities of ISO 8879, section D.4.  These are what Jean
Veronis uses in his sample, and fears he will not be able to sell
people:  &eacute; for e with acute, etc.
 
If I were trying to sell this solution to people, I would make the
following points, not necessarily in this order:
 
1 this is for interchange, *not* for local processing:  I would look at
Jean's last name as V)ronis on my screen locally, not as 'Veronis' or
'V&eacute;ronis' or V\'eronis, and change to the interchange form just
before the data left my CPU to go to the network.  The recipient might
well translate from the interchange form into whatever local form is
desired, before even looking at the file.
 
2 this *works* for interchange, which is more than can be said for many
other possible approaches.  If I sent a file containing JV's example, it
would arrive anywhere on this net in readable form.  If I sent the same
file containing the characters in the proper form for display on my
system, it would look like real French when it left me, but like this
when it arrived on your system -- and while I don't know exactly what
this will look like, I am willing to bet no one on this list will see
the accents as they should be (unless we have a few cross-subscribers from
the ISO8859 list):
 
    La linguistique informatique mod)lise les ph$nom$nes
    li)s N l'interpr)tation et N la production du
    langage, de mani$re N etc.
 
Among the techniques which don't work well for interchange are
 
    - using an existing 8-bit character set's representation
      of the characters.  IBM PCs use character 82 (hex) or 130
      (decimal) for e-acute, but this typically arrives after net
      transfer as character 02, which is a control character and
      might have unexpected results.  The Mac uses 8E for this
      character, which may arrive as 0E (14), another control
      character, this one dangerous because it means 'switch
      to alternate character set'.  Even if they arrive as 82 or 8E,
      these characters are unlikely to be understood correctly on
      a different machine without documentation of the source
      character set, which is not standard in file transfer today.
      IBM mainframes use, some of them, the codes I sent above.
      The network software seldom knows about these ...
    - using the French standard 7-bit character set or its EBCDIC
      equivalent.  This will often arrive unmolested, even after
      ASCII-EBCDIC translation, but not if the text crosses a
      national boundary.  How many readers outside of France
      recognize JV's name in the string "V{ronis"?
      (In some countries, this string will be clearly not quite right.
      In others, the e-acute will have been replaced with some other
      possible vowel, and the error will be hard to detect.)
    - using commonly defined but not *standard* solutions like TeX's
      codes -- backslash is a national character, which does not
      always cross national boundaries, and does not always cross
      ASCII/EBCDIC boundaries safely either.  Also, doubly delimited
      strings like SGML entity references are less ambiguous and
      thus safer than half-delimited strings like TeX codes.
 
3 Because the entity names of ISO 8879 D.4 are long and cumbersome, we
can subsitute shorter names for them if we wish, by making appropriate
declarations in our document type declaration.  (The current draft of
the guidelines doesn't go into this, in part because we're not sure how
great an idea this is.  The Oxford version of the DOE corpus of Old
English, however, does use its own entity names for eth, thorn, etc.
rather than keeping the long and cumbersome ones defined in ISO 8879.)
 
4 Because the SGML entity reference is a general-purpose tool, it is
not optimized for French.  That makes it seem clumsy.  It also ensures
that unlike many other tools it will not conflict with solutions for
German, Danish, and Spanish, or even with solutions for Greek, Cyrillic,
and Hebrew.
 
Once again now:
 
    - Interchange, not necessarily local processing.
    - Entity references work, and few alternatives do.
    - Entities can be made less cumbersome whenever it pays to do so.
    - Entities are a general-purpose tool.
 
Of these, the most important, I think, is that the solution provided
works and works reliably with every network connection or other method
of file transfer now known to me or to anyone on the character set
group.
 
I should also point out that the issue of character handling has had
some of the most thoughtful and voluminous commentary thus far received,
and the work group on character sets may well decide eventually to
change the rules for 'TEI-conformant' interchange to allow eight-bit
interchange, and separate the ISO 646 subset or some similar mechanism
into a separate recommendation for cases where the network is unknown or
is known not to support eight-bit data transfer.  Those with opinions
would do well to make them known to this list or to the head of the work
group, Harry Gaylord (galiard @ let.rug.nl).
 
Michael Sperberg-McQueen

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager