From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 84709 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2018 12:01:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 84242 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2018 12:00:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=prime X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration table [BZ #2872] re-submission for 2.29 To: Marko Myllynen , Rafal Luzynski , Keld Simonsen Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-locales@sourceware.org, "Dmitry V. Levin" , Volodymyr Lisivka , Carlos O'Donell , Max Kutny , danilo@gnome.org References: <41532e13-a63d-5df1-ab37-05eb4d6c8d0a@kobylkin.com> <20180412224352.GB2911@altlinux.org> <16e785f3-2e9f-ceb2-698f-dc33c91a5d5e@kobylkin.com> <20181003091949.GA21486@rap.rap.dk> <21d872b2-613e-d1f5-26c0-baa4b5721df9@kobylkin.com> <1485772360.805333.1538731225156@poczta.nazwa.pl> From: Egor Kobylkin Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-q4/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 Hi Marko, I have chosen the System B because it is ASCII compartible. System A is not ASCII compartible (diacritics in target). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9#ISO_9:1995,_or_GOST_7.79_System_A "GOST 7.79 contains two transliteration tables. System A one Cyrillic character to one Latin character, some with diacritics – identical to ISO 9:1995 System B one Cyrillic character to one or many Latin characters without diacritics " Hope this helps, Egor On 05.10.2018 13:54, Marko Myllynen wrote: > Hi, > > Would it make sense to first use ISO 9:1995/GOST 7.79 System A if > possible and if not, then fall back to GOST 7.79 System B? > > Implementation-wise current translit_* files have few examples where a > non-ASCII transliteration is tried first before an ASCII fallback. These > examples are from translit_neutral: > > % NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE > ; > % REVERSED TRIPLE PRIME > "";"" > > Thanks, > > On 2018-10-05 13:29, Egor Kobylkin wrote: >> Keld,Marko,Rafal, other locale maintainers, >> >> this all is written with having in mind a minimal viable fix for this >> bug asap. I want to avoid wasting maintainers time getting into >> fundamental discussions here (although for perfectly good reasons). >> >> I see three options: >> 1. those locale maintainers that are fine with using ISO >> 9:1995/GOST_7.79_System_B cyrillic transliteration table (Ru) include it >> in their locales (see attached screenshot of the table). >> 2. those that that want to have a differing table can create their own >> variety based on the spreadsheet I have prepared >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8590 and include it in >> this patch. >> 3. those that want to omit a cyrillic transliteration altogether for now >> state so and just carry over the bug #2872 from the year 2006. >> >> Does this make sense to you? >> >> Just to be super clear on this: the patch is a stopgap _ASCII_ >> transliteration table. ASCII being AMERICAN Standard Code for >> Information Interchange, that is obviously orthogonal to any >> transliteration rule of other countries. As such it is not explicitly >> targeting transliteration standards of any country. >> >> The fact that the patch is reflecting Russian variety of ISO >> 9:1995/GOST_7.79_System_B is because a) ISO 9:1995/GOST_7.79_System_B is >> available and can be helpful to a majority of cyrillic users b) I have >> access to it including via being proficient in Russian. >> >> It is offered to all the respective locale maintainers as a stopgap >> solution. Stopgap in the sense that it is better to have some >> transliteration than not to have any at all and carry over the bug from >> 2006. That it may be a somewhat officially correct transliteration for >> ru_RU is a bonus. In that sense I would dub the discussion on the >> correctness for other languages "offtopic". Let me know if this is not OK. >> >> You are all are correctly mentioning the deficiencies of this approach. >> However, I couldn't find a better straightforward approach as of yet. >> Happy to hear from you as on how this could be handled. >> >> There is a danger of being caught in the web of language/country >> differences. I propose just pruning the locales that are not comfortable >> including this current table. We can address possible solutions in the >> second wave of patching. >> >> I am vary of getting into discussions on specific country variants just >> because of the sheer complexity of this topic. It is probably better >> addressed by respective maintainers of their locales. I do not see a >> "one fits all" solution in this first wave possible. >> >> I would like to have this "three options plan of action" vetted first >> and then we could go to the specific detail. (Like, for instance, what >> characters should be included in to the table, and in which >> transliteration form.) >> >> I am looking forward to your reply, >> Egor Kobylkin >> >> P.S. specifically as to how address languages other than Ru included in >> GOST_7.79_System_B: we can take the first option left to right from that >> table (Ru,By,Uk,Bg,Mk). Then it will technically work for all those >> locales/languages but with errors where Ru supersedes their own variants. >> >> >> On 05.10.2018 11:20, Rafal Luzynski wrote: >>> 3.10.2018 11:32 Egor Kobylkin wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03.10.2018 11:19, Keld Simonsen wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Please note that translitteration of Cyrillic to latin is not universal. >>>>> There are different schemes for for example German, English and Danish, and >>>>> there is also an ISO standard for it. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your feedback, Keld! >>>> >>>> Could the locale maintainers that wouldn't like to include this patch >>>> explicitly state so here? >>> >>> I think it is about me so I must reply. I am sorry about that and the sole >>> reason is my lack of time. I'm just a volunteer here, that means it's not >>> my regular job to work on locale data nor anything in glibc nor in any other >>> open source project. I do these things only in my free time which I don't >>> have much. Of course you will see my contributions here and there but they >>> are either trivial or take me months to complete. Your patches are on my >>> radar but I can't tell any ETA for them. Of course, there are other people >>> around here and they are all welcome to come and join. >>> >>>> That is: >>>> - In the case that there is a different preferred cyrillic >>>> transliteration table for any specific locale their maintainers may want >>>> to point me to it so I can supply a separate table/patch. >>>> - Or they could state explicitly that for some reason they would like to >>>> exclude their locale from the patch for a default cyrillic >>>> transliteration altogether. >>> >>> As Keld wrote, there are probably separate rules for every language so >>> I don't think you should treat your rules as universal and include them >>> in every locale. At first sight, it seems to me they work only for English >>> (as a destination locale). Also, although it is called "transliteration >>> from Cyrillic" it seems that it covers only Russian alphabet. What about >>> other languages which use Cyrillic alphabet but add their own diacritic >>> characters? Think about Belarusian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Chechen, Chuvash, >>> Mari, Ossetian, Yakut, Tatar, and more. What about languages which use >>> Cyrillic alphabet but transliterate their respective letters in a different >>> way than Russian? For example, Russian "Ъ" is (I think) usually skipped >>> in transliteration, I think you propose "``", but when transliterating from >>> Bulgarian they usually transliterate this as "ă". >>> >>> Few remarks: >>> >>> * I think you transliterate "щ" as "shh", wouldn't "shch" be better? >>> * You transliterate "ц" as "cz", wouldn't "ts" be better? By the way, >>> in Polish language "cz" is a correct transliteration of "ч". >>> * You transliterate "й" as "j", this is fine in many languages but wouldn't >>> "y" be better in English? >>> * In case of "е": how will you know if it is correct to transliterate it >>> to "e" or "ie" or "je" or "ye"? >>> >>> These remarks are obviously incomplete, your patch deserves much more >>> attention to review. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rafal >>> >> > >