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  May 1993

TEI-L May 1993

Subject:

Recomendations from SC22 Character set Ad Hoc meeting

From:

Dominic Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dominic Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 May 1993 11:02:54 CDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (274 lines)

An ad hoc working group of ISO/IEC JTC1 recently held a meeting to
discuss the implications of the imminent ISO 10646 multi-octet
character set standard for existing and future standards developed
elsewhere in JTC1.  As this certainly bears on SGML, I am, with
permission, cross-posting the group's recommendations from a mail
list to which I subscribe to a couple of other relevant mail lists.
 
If you're burning to discuss these issues with those who must act
in response to them, probably the best thing to do is to get in touch
with your national standards organization, and seek out those
concerned with SC18, the JTC1 subcommittee under which SGML was
standardized.
---
Dominic
 
----- Begin Included Message -----
 
                        Recommendations of Meeting
 
Date:    23 April, 1993
 
To: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22
 
cc: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24
 
From:   Ad Hoc Meeting on Character Sets, 21-23 April, 1993,
        Copenhagen, Denmark
 
Subject: Meeting Report and Recommendations
 
1. Introduction
 
The Ad Hoc meeting on character sets was called to address issues
associated with the implementation of ISO/IEC 10646, Universal
Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS).  The meeting was attended by
twenty-one representatives from six working groups of SC22, SC2, SC18,
XOPEN, and POSIX (attendance list, and document register are
attached).
 
ISO/IEC 10646 has been approved and forwarded to ISO ITTF for
publication as an International Standard.  It has a far reaching impact
on programming languages and information technology standards in
general, opening the door to extended natural language processing,
improved international communication, and presentation.
 
The necessity for some computer applications to now support many (or
almost all) of the world's scripts and languages has led to the
realization that coded characters and glyphs are distinct.
 
Processing of the sequence of coded characters is part of the
programming language API and therefore is a concern to SC22.
Programming language standards produced by SC22 working groups should,
therefore, support a more general model than the simple byte equal
coded character equal glyph model.  A model general enough to support
ISO/IEC 10646 encodings is appropriate; such a model would support not
only ISO/IEC 10646, but other encodings as well.
 
In addition to requirements on individual working groups and
programming language standards, SC22 should also be concerned with
interoperability between those programming language standards.  While
difficult for practices already standardized, SC22 should require that
the models for encoded character data incorporated into programming
language standards provide for the interchange of ISO/IEC 10646 encoded
data.
 
Concerns have been raised about the compatibility of ISO/IEC 10646 to
other standards and with implementation difficulties.  These concerns
appear to be a natural consequence of making a major technological step
forward.  The specific issues identified by the Ad Hoc meeting
attendees and their recommendations are provided below.
 
The members wish to express their appreciation to Msrs. Mike Ksar and
Glenn Adams (SC2) for their presentations on ISO/IEC 10646, Alan
Griffee (SC18) for his presentation on character/glyph relationship,
and Gary Miller for his presentation on the XPG/POSIX model.  The
members also wish to express their appreciation to Danish Standards and
their staff for hosting a pleasant and well supported meeting.
 
The goal of the meeting was to identify policies and principles
regarding the use of character sets, with emphasis on ISO/IEC 10646,
and to identify areas of concerns including at least those presented at
the SC22 Plenary at Ellevuori, Finland, 1992, as documented in SC22
N1239 (see Hellerup 16).
 
2. Issues.
 
Issues identified by the ad hoc group were:
 
2.1. Terminology
 
The SC22 working groups use different terminology for the character set
related terms, including the "character" term itself. This causes
problems when the programming languages interoperate, and also problems
for cross language products like WG11 binding standards and POSIX
operating system standards.
 
Also standards from other JTC1 SC's using SC22 standards will have
problems if the terminology and definitions are not aligned at the JTC1
level.  The phrase "graphic library" is a case in point.  The problem
is accentuated with ISO/IEC 10646 which is more complex than the usual
series of SC2 standards, and introduces some new terminology.
 
2.2. Current High Level Language data types
 
There are problems in handling the various forms of ISO/IEC 10646 in
some languages.
 
2.2.1 C, C++ and POSIX have problems handling the NUL octet in UCS-2
and UCS-4 in current implementations, as an octet with this value is
the string terminator. Many current POSIX implementations cannot handle
UCS-2 and UCS-4 in file names and text files.
 
2.2.2. POSIX uses / (solidus) as the delimiter for separation of a path
name in several parts. Due to misinterpretation of character data, many
implementations will regard any occurrence of an octet with a value
equal to the / to be the separator. This value will occur as part of
UCS-2/4 data and also UTF data - it will also occur in other encoding
schemes.
 
2.2.3  ISO/IEC 10646 introduces a number of ways of encoding the
characters including UCS-2, UCS-4 and UTF and a number of levels (1, 2,
3) where some characters may be forbidden or have restricted use.
 
An application may have use for one or more of these encodings and also
other character set encodings - for example, when reading or writing
data in communication with other programs, possibly written in other
languages.  Current SC22 standards seldom have provisions for
specifying the precise encoding, nor provisions for converting between
the possible encodings.
 
Sub-problems:
 
       2.2.3.1 canonical representation of ISO/IEC 10646
       2.2.3.2 How to deal with multiple character sets in a system
       2.2.3.3 character set identification
       2.2.3.4 character set selection
 
2.2.4. Many programming languages do not have provisions to handle in a
standardized and portable manner a large character repertoire like
ISO/IEC 10646.  In this context compiler support is many times lacking
for string literals, comments, identifiers, and run-time support is
many times lacking for classification of characters (upper, lower,
numeric, stroke-count, and so on), collating and equivalence - which
may be culturally dependent.
 
2.2.5. There may be problems in utilizing the facilities of a large
character repertoire such as ISO/IEC 10646, as there may be limits in
hardware or software in special areas that hinders the application in
other areas.  For example, there may be problems with the input and the
editing of files, which are perfectly able of being presented at some
equipment, while also there may be smaller or greater difficulties at
presenting the text on other equipment.
 
2.2.6  There is no awareness of positioning of variably sized
characters in formatted reports, or in formatted records.
 
2.3. Handling large Character sets
 
2.3.1. Handling of characters are often done by indexing by the
character value. With a range of the character type of about 65.000 or
2.000.000.000  possible values (for UCS-2 or UCS-4 respectively) this
may become impractical. Level 1 of ISO/IEC 10646 defines 33.426
characters.
 
2.3.2. An application will often only want to handle a subset of
ISO/IEC 10646, for example, a subset used in a given language
environment.  There are currently no ways to specify such a subset in
many programming languages and operating systems.  If such a smaller
repertoire can be specified it could significantly reduce the system
requirements for the application.
 
2.4. Composite sequences
 
ISO/IEC 10646 introduces the concept of "composite sequences" where
characters can be combined with following "combining characters" to
form a graphical symbol, and a potentially equally-looking graphical
symbol can be present too in the standard.
 
2.4.1. this introduces a number of ways to code the same graphical
symbol.  Testing for equality of strings is not normally specified to
handle such alternatives in the character encoding.
 
2.4.2. The composite sequences may require read ahead of a potentially
unlimited number of character before a program can determine the
graphical symbol read. Also the requirement of read ahead implies that
an interactive program may have to wait for a possibly nonexisting
character before further processing can be initiated.
 
2.4.3. Storage requirements for a string of a given external length (in
columns on a screen for example) is not determinable.
 
2.5. Natural language dependent character handling
 
2.5.1 Many operations on character data are language dependent, for
example collating, transformation between upper and lower case. For this
it will be necessary to handle the data in units like "text elements"
consisting possibly of more characters, for example "ll" and "ch" when
collating Spanish.  Most SC22 standards lack specifications for this.
 
2.5.2 There is no standardized way of identifying what language or
orthography is being used, to apply the correct language dependent
functionality.
 
3 Recommended solutions
 
Based on above definition of issues, the character set ad hoc group has
prepared a set of recommendations to the SC22 working groups.  We
realize that the implementation of recommendations that require the
change of existing programming language standards will take a long
time; for example, the next release of the COBOL standard will not be
issued before 1997.  We therefore decided to break our recommendations
down into such which can be implemented on a short term basis and such
which will have to be implemented in the next revision of the standard
and thus can be considered long term plans.
 
3.1. Near term (1-3 years)
 
3.1.1 We recommend that support be provided for ISO/IEC 10646 where the
unit of processing is exactly one coded character - as defined in
ISO/IEC 10646.  "Unit of processing" is the smallest unit a programming
language or operating system can process for ISO/IEC 10646 coded
character data.
 
This means:
 
  - all coded characters in ISO/IEC 10646 level 3 are available for use
    by applications.
 
  - this minimum level does not require the interpretation of composite
    sequences semantically as logical processing units.
 
3.1.2 We recommend that SC22 address interlanguage communication of
ISO/IEC 10646 coded data.
 
3.1.3 We recommend that FSS-UTF be registered within ISO 2375 (ECMA).
 
3.2 Long term solutions:
 
3.2.1 We recommend that programming languages and supporting
environments provide support for composite sequences and
CC-data-elements of ISO/IEC 10646 as logical processing units.
Considerations should be given to the relation between logical
processing units and natural language and orthography, and as such may
require a mechanism for their identification.
 
3.2.2 We recommend that WG15 or WG20 address the need for announcement
mechanisms for the different encodings, levels and subrepertoires of
ISO/IEC 10646 (see section 17.1 of ISO/IEC 10646, second sentence).
The same mechanisms may also be used to announce other coded character
set.
 
3.3. Consistent terminology:
 
3.3.1 We recommend that the terms defined by SC2 in the context of
ISO/IEC 10646 be adopted by SC22.
 
3.3.2 The relationship among characters, graphic symbols, and glyphs,
and the terminology that surrounds this relationship is currently under
joint study by SC2 and SC18.
 
3.3.3 The requirements of internationalization and text processing
suggest the need for additional terminology.  Terminology which is not
currently defined by JTC1 standards is required. For example, a term is
needed to describe the unit of logical processing of written language
and/or the units of particular text processes such as sorting,
searching, and so on.
 
 
 
----- End Included Message -----

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

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
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