goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (09/28/89)
In article <5508@zyx.ZYX.SE> arndt@zyx.ZYX.SE (Arndt Jonasson) makes a very important request for information - one that makes we here in the US only to painfully aware of our almost pathological inability to think internationally, at least on the linguistic level: >This is a request for information. We are in the process of developing >software which among other things will handle natural languages other >than English in a useful manner. This software will mostly run in an >environment using the X Window System. Among the languages that raise >the most problems is Japanese, since the set of characters is so much >larger than the Latin alphabet. I have sent mail to several firms about this problem. Most replies have been of the ilk: We are aware of the problem of internationalization, and we are working on localizing the various versions of our software for various nationalities. The fundamental misconception is, of course, that localization is com- patible with internationalization. Every time a system is hacked for a new alphabet/font/wordwrap method, all the software needs to be hacked with it. Moreover, software written for a different situation in a different country needs to be "ported" to run in another country and another situation. And what of bi- or multi-lingual environments? Increasingly, English is being used in conjunction with national languages (e.g. India, and in the Far East, somewhat in Arabic-speaking countries, definitely in Israel). In places like Turkey, we have Arabic, Turkish, and then some English and other W. European languages being used by international firms. If we sell them "Turkish" versions of a given os or windowing package, it will not fit the real-life conditions of the market. A truly international windowing environment must offer basic support for: 1) proportional spacing on screen, with overstrikes (particularly important for Arabic) 2) various character sets used simultaneously in the same window 3) various wordwrap methods used simultaneously in the same win- dow Only in this manner can each country in which a product is marketed really have the same product (see the problems with EBCDIC transla- tion!), and likewise be able to run products easily that were devel- oped in other countries (and, I might add, to do it all at the same time). In short, Arndt Johanssen will be hard-pressed to find what he is looking for, at least in terms of some fundamentally international solution. He will probably have to settle for a short-sighted hack that some independent firm, or else some national branch of a larger firm, has developed to meet his particular sort of need. -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/28/89)
In article <5557@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >In article <5508@zyx.ZYX.SE> arndt@zyx.ZYX.SE (Arndt Jonasson) makes >a very important request for information - one that makes we here in >the US only to painfully aware of our almost pathological inability >to think internationally, at least on the linguistic level: It also appears to make us forget how to use English. >The fundamental misconception is, of course, that localization is com- >patible with internationalization. No, the fundamental problem is that you don't know what they mean by "localization". It's a technical term; locales provide a flexible mans of supporting multiple cultural interfaces on the same system. The original technique was devised by X3J11 in conjunction with international working groups that were concerned with such issues, generally summarized as "internationalization". I receive many of their mailings regularly. I think they have the matter well under control.
ry@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (ryerson.schwark) (09/28/89)
In article <5557@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >In short, Arndt Johanssen will be hard-pressed to find what he is >looking for, at least in terms of some fundamentally international >solution. He will probably have to settle for a short-sighted hack >that some independent firm, or else some national branch of a larger >firm, has developed to meet his particular sort of need. Not True! AT&T has done considerable work on internationalization with the intent that all the work we have done not have to be redone for each language. We have quite effectively addressed Japanese, one of the more difficult languages with 3 alphabets and ideograms, and have created some generalized solutions to address both Asian and European languages. The UNIX Software Operation is, however, in the source code licensing business, so you may not be seeing this stuff on your vendor's box yet, but the technology is there. Ry Schwark rye@attunix.att.com
goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (09/28/89)
In article <11171@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >It also appears to make us forget how to use English. Come now, is this really a substantive comment, Doug? >>The fundamental misconception is, of course, that localization is com- >>patible with internationalization. > >No, the fundamental problem is that you don't know what they >mean by "localization". It's a technical term; locales provide >a flexible mans of supporting multiple cultural interfaces on >the same system. The original technique was devised by X3J11 >in conjunction with international working groups that were >concerned with such issues, generally summarized as >"internationalization". I receive many of their mailings >regularly. I think they have the matter well under control. Very interesting. The problem I have found (and, regardless of ter- minology, it seems real enough to me) is that no one has come up with a standard interface that: 1) offers flexible creating and use of multiple fonts in the same window 2) offers proportional spacing and/or overstrike, or some other ready means of getting languages like Arabic on the screen 3) offers access to various wordwrap methods for (1) and (2) If such a system exists, I would truly like to know about it. Short of this, it would be hard to call something "international." My impression is that the responder quoted above was so annoyed at my ignorance about the term "localization" that he did not address the substantive questions raised. I, for one, would like to know more than simply that they "have the matter well under control." -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Bassett RCD) (09/29/89)
I heartily agree that U.S. companies are, for the most part, abysmally ignorant about internationalization. On the other hand, I would counsel the gentleman from Sweden to get his company to form a partnership with a Japanese (Korean, etc.) company to develop WP software for those languages. The Japanese, at least, have put tremendous effort into handling romaji/katakana/kanji input, output, and displays -- they are the _experts_ in the language, after all, and know which optimizations and shortcuts will and will not work. I know what kind of butchery _I_ do to the languages I half-know, and have seen that kind of English . . . Sam'l Bassett, Sterling Software @ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field CA 94035 Work: (415) 694-4792; Home: (415) 969-2644 samlb@well.sf.ca.us samlb@ames.arc.nasa.gov <Disclaimer> := 'Sterling doesn't _have_ opinions -- much less NASA!'
uucibg@swbatl.UUCP (3929) (09/29/89)
In article <5566@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >Very interesting. The problem I have found (and, regardless of ter- >minology, it seems real enough to me) is that no one has come up >with a standard interface that: > > 1) offers flexible creating and use of multiple fonts in the > same window > 2) offers proportional spacing and/or overstrike, or some other > ready means of getting languages like Arabic on the screen > 3) offers access to various wordwrap methods for (1) and (2) > >If such a system exists, I would truly like to know about it. Short >of this, it would be hard to call something "international." ... You ought to check out the MacOS's ScriptManager stuff. It claims to do this kind of thing. As I recall, there were some bugs in the code but from what I know it was substantially correct (disclaimer: I've never actually had a chance to work with the routines). I believe that the known bugs were to be fixed with the next release of the OS (which should be out 1st qtr of 1990). For more info, you probably could post to comp.sys.mac.programmer, look at a copy of Inside Macintosh Volume V, or call Apple and have them tell you to do one of the first two :-). > -Richard L. Goerwitz > goer@sophist.uchicago.edu > rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer Disclaimer: I could be wrong. :-) Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian R. Gilstrap ...!{ {killer,bellcore}!texbell, uunet }!swbatl!uucibg One Bell Center +---------------------------------------------------------- Rm 17-G-4 | "Winnie-the-Pooh read the two notices very carefully, St. Louis, MO 63101 | first from left to right, and afterwards, in case he had (314) 235-3929 | missed some of it, from right to left." -- A. A. Milne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Me, speak for my company? You must be joking. I'm just speaking my mind.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/29/89)
In article <5566@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >I, for one, would like to know more than simply that they >"have the matter well under control." Well, instead of bitching about how dumb everybody is, don't you think you should be participating in the internationalization work? It's hardly been a closely-guarded secret.
goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) (09/29/89)
In article <11183@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <5566@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >>I, for one, would like to know more than simply that they >>"have the matter well under control." > >Well, instead of bitching about how dumb everybody is, don't you >think you should be participating in the internationalization work? >It's hardly been a closely-guarded secret. Aren't you the same fellow who just blasted me for my grammar on the net, and then proceeded to blast me again over my ignorance about a term - "localization" (forgetting in the process to address the basic question I asked)? :-( Let's get back to the first question I asked you: What are these products or systems you seem to think exist? Who has the matter "well under control"? There's no need to be hostile. I really don't mind being told I don't know what I'm talking about if my respondent can cite evidence. Can you cite an os or windowing sys- tem that meets the criteria I outlined? Please, no more flames: Facts. -Richard L. Goerwitz goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
ck@voa3.UUCP (Chris Kern) (09/29/89)
In article <5566@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: > ... The problem I have found (and, regardless of ter- >minology, it seems real enough to me) is that no one has come up >with a standard interface that: > > 1) offers flexible creating and use of multiple fonts in the > same window > 2) offers proportional spacing and/or overstrike, or some other > ready means of getting languages like Arabic on the screen > 3) offers access to various wordwrap methods for (1) and (2) > Xerox markets sophisticated multilingual word processing software in its ViewPoint product line. We currently have word processing in 31 languages, including some difficult ones, such as Arabic, Chinese, and Hindi, and will have 43 languages installed by the middle of next year. We tend to use the software mono- or bi-lingually; typically, our radio scripts are composed in one foreign language with a little bit of English thrown in. However, there is no limit to the number of languages that can be included in a single document. The typing logic is sensible (except in a few cases where well-established national standards mandate a typewriter-style approach to typing, although it probably is sensible to follow the standard if that's how everyone in that culture is taught to type). Rendering is handled properly on the user's video monitor as well as in the laser printed hard-copy. Our native speaker users say the quality of the fonts ranges from good to outstanding. Essentially, everything works exactly as the user expects. Some genuinely difficult technical obstacles must be overcome to accomplish that. It is not just a matter of drawing the fonts properly. (Imagine an English phrase followed by its Chinese translation, drawn from a universe of 10,000 discrete Chinese characters, with an intervening parenthetical expression in Arabic, which is written right-to-left and where many of the individual letters can assume up to four different shapes depending on their position within a word. Now imagine what the software has to do as you type that string of words serially. Or backspace over or otherwise edit part of it after you have typed it.) We're quite pleased with the quality of the individual languages. But the *generality* of the system is astounding. Currently, ViewPoint runs on Xerox's proprietary Mesa processor, but the company has announced plans to port its office automation software to a UNIX platform (specifically, a SPARC processor produced by or under license from Sun). (I have no connection to Xerox except as a customer.) -- Chris Kern Voice of America, Washington, D.C. ...uunet!voa3!ck +1 202-485-7020
tw@Atherton.COM (Tw Cook) (09/30/89)
In article <3260@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, samlb@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Bassett RCD) writes: > On the other hand, I would counsel the gentleman from Sweden to >get his company to form a partnership with a Japanese (Korean, etc.) >company to develop WP software for those languages. The Japanese, at >least, have put tremendous effort into handling romaji/katakana/kanji >input, output, and displays -- they are the _experts_ in the language, >after all, and know which optimizations and shortcuts will and will not >work. I second this recommendation. In my previous life at HP, handling foreign languages seemed to be a really big problem; always behind, not a very good job. Then they transferred a lot of the Unix commands work to an HP lab in Japan. Suddenly, the problem got much less severe! Tw
ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) (10/01/89)
In article <2033@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> ry@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (ryerson.schwark,sf,) comments upon Richard Goerwitz' conclusion: > Arndt Johanssen [...] > will probably have to settle for a short-sighted hack > that some independent firm, or else some national branch of a larger > firm, has developed to meet his particular sort of need. thus: > Not True! AT&T [...] > have created some generalized solutions to address both Asian > and European languages. Oh, yes? I challenge you to come up with a solution to the Polish, Slovak, Czech, Croatian, Latvian and few other European Latin-character alfabets not currently cared for in either the EBCDIC, the "8-bit ASCII," or the DEC Multinational character sets. Not to mention the present-day's TOTAL inability to address/ display/ communicate with computers in bi- lingual or multi-lingual mode... Seems to me any solution to the above that is based on post-addressing "the problem" instead of making it a part of the basic-design stage is bound to fail in the end.... see the "short-sighted hacks" that Richard was talking about. P.S. The computer czars have gotten away with it so far. Now that Poland is about to re-join the Western society (in principle if not yet in spirit) there is one less excuse for not catering to 'East- European Commie languages' -- ---- ------ ianf@nada.kth.se/ @sekth.bitnet/ uunet!nada.kth.se!ianf ---- --
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (10/07/89)
>In article <5566@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes: >Very interesting. The problem I have found (and, regardless of ter- >minology, it seems real enough to me) is that no one has come up >with a standard interface that: > 1) offers flexible creating and use of multiple fonts in the > same window > 2) offers proportional spacing and/or overstrike, or some other > ready means of getting languages like Arabic on the screen > 3) offers access to various wordwrap methods for (1) and (2) Richard L. Goerwitz is right. All of this is standard on the Macintohsh. Ever since the Mac II came out in 1987, all System releases have patched the ROM Text editor to use Script Manager. Script Manager lets you chain multiple national keyboards off the ADB bus, or remap the current keyboard with a single mouse click. It handles language systems that write from right to left, and those that write from left to write, it handles mixing them on a single line, and selecting a portion of that line with the mouse. Think about it: a selection that is contiguous in memory will not be on the screen. It handles sorting according to the rules of the country (in Spanish, I've heard, "ch" sorts after "cz".) It handles specifying numeric formats (such as the spreadsheet equivalent of a fortran format statement) in one national format, in a program written in a second language, for a customer who will be using a third langauge. It handles conversion to non-western calendar systems, such as the Japanese in-the-year-of-the-emporor or the arabic hours which are based on the local length of the daylight. You use a cute piece of software that lets you point at a world map, or type in a city name, if you don't know your latitude or longitude. It handles mixing multi-font characters, such as Japanese, with single font characters, and the problems that causes for string searching (can't match in the middle of a character.) (JNSI chars take two bytes each.) It handles languages that justify text by adding extra white space (like English) and langauges that justify text by making the letters wider, (like arabic). Think of the problems justifying a mixed English Arabic line. It handles languages where the glyph denoted by a byte differs depending on whether that character is at the beginning, middle, or end of the word. (for example Hebrew's "mem", "mem-sofeet") In arabic there are many characters that look different depending on whether they are at the begginning, middle, or end of the word. As you type, the previous character is redrawn appropriately, and the current character is drawn. 99% of non-wordprocessor application programs already call TexEdit to do text handling for them. They become multi-lingual immediately when run on a Mac that has had the appropriate national interface system file placed in the system folder. Word processing programs, and other text-handling programs that don't use text edit can call Script Manager directly. Apple also provides a tool to let the informed user change the menu key equivalents, all the menu & prompt text, and the windows containing the text (translation usually makes strings longer.) of their existing binaries. (Compilers on Macintosh use a run-time linkage to dialogs and strings, so they can be made larger safely.) Apple sent free copies of all the national interface systems files they've published to all their developers on a CD ROM called "Phil & Dave's Excellent CD." An early version of the Script Manager documentation is contained in Inside mac Vol. 5. The current version of the Script Manager documentation is on the CD. It is also available on paper from the Apple Program Developers Association. (which everyone calls APDA.) As a developer, I get the feeling from Apple that they are serious about this. That they want all the developers to make their software fully compatible with Script Manager (most old programs don't call the script manager to verify that they haven't matched a string in the middle of a Japanese character.) I've tried their software, and it works. What kind of free software have you gotten from your o.s. vendor lately? > The mac is a detour in the inevitable march of mediocre computers. > drs@bnlux0.bnl.gov (David R. Stampf) --- David Phillip Oster -master of the ad hoc odd hack. Keith Sproul, head of microcomputer support at Union Carbide, NJ, complained about the poorly digitized fellatio on an IBM porno program. "Mac is better on everything, and this is no execption." -- "Computer Porn at the Office" by Reese Erlich, _This_World_, S.F. Chronicle, p.8, Aug 13, 1989 Arpa: oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu Uucp: {uwvax,decvax}!ucbvax!oster%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu