Hi Michael
Michael wrote as No. That's not enough, because a user could look at a page with a Unicode 4.1 font -- and get an unreadable result. Or a user could look at a pseudo-Unicode font like Zawgyi (and there are others)
You aware that our bad situation. How can we make readable result. Yes, we need to put online converter in mediawiki in migration period. After stable enough in Burmese rendering, we do not need converter certainly.
*They may or may not have support for minority-langauge characters or for some special Sanskrit-language shaping behaviour (important for Buddhist terminology.)* Are we talking on Burmese Language, right. Others Minority Language should be consider when we have technical specification like UTN1 http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn11/myanmar_uni-v2.pdf. We do not have representation in Sanskrit, Mon, Shan and Karen. So, shall we start to use my.wikipedia.org without Sanskrit and minority-language.
And we could do other minitoriy language wikipedia in near future.
*We don't want people creating text using Unicode 4.1 fonts or Zawgyi or other non-conformant fonts. We want text to be conformant, interchangeable, cut-and-pasteable, and so on.* Exactly, I agree you voices. We are enforcing to use Unicode conformant solution. But we need to take care other people who are lack in technical. They can't upgrade uniscribe rendering engine. Or They had a lot of article with Zawgyi. Why not we support those people.
I'm ensure that we will make converter as javascript. Everybody may happy to use it with *no cost*
See you.
Ngwe Tun
2008/7/25 Ngwe Tun ngwestar@gmail.com:
Hi Michael
Michael wrote as No. That's not enough, because a user could look at a page with a Unicode 4.1 font -- and get an unreadable result. Or a user could look at a pseudo-Unicode font like Zawgyi (and there are others)
You aware that our bad situation. How can we make readable result. Yes, we need to put online converter in mediawiki in migration period. After stable enough in Burmese rendering, we do not need converter certainly.
Although on the fly encoding transformations would be a step backwards for promoting uptake of Unicode 5.1.
It would provide less incentive for users to migrate to Unicode 5.1
Additionally the converters aren't a long term solution for Unicode 5.1 data, the key issue there is that there are no opensource or free solutions available on Windows to provide Myanmar rendering on pre-Vista versions of Windows.
For commercial solutions i only know of one developer in licensing discussions with Microsoft that involve Uniscribe injection for applications running on older versions of Windows.
If encoding transformations are required, I'd suggest that rather than adding it to Mediawiki, such projects could be handled as an extesion or addon to a web browser, there are laready many similar projects for Firefox that handle encoding transformations, e.g. TISCII <-> Unicode, etc.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Andrew Cunningham lang.support@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/25 Ngwe Tun ngwestar@gmail.com:
Hi Michael
Michael wrote as No. That's not enough, because a user could look at a page with a Unicode 4.1 font -- and get an unreadable result. Or a user could look at a pseudo-Unicode font like Zawgyi (and there are others)
You aware that our bad situation. How can we make readable result. Yes, we need to put online converter in mediawiki in migration period. After stable enough in Burmese rendering, we do not need converter certainly.
Although on the fly encoding transformations would be a step backwards for promoting uptake of Unicode 5.1.
It would provide less incentive for users to migrate to Unicode 5.1
I think we try to win heart of contributor rather then forcing contributor to use Unicode 5.1 by Myanmar Wikipedia.
Additionally the converters aren't a long term solution for Unicode 5.1 data, the key issue there is that there are no opensource or free solutions available on Windows to provide Myanmar rendering on pre-Vista versions of Windows.
For commercial solutions i only know of one developer in licensing discussions with Microsoft that involve Uniscribe injection for applications running on older versions of Windows.
If encoding transformations are required, I'd suggest that rather than adding it to Mediawiki, such projects could be handled as an extesion or addon to a web browser, there are laready many similar projects for Firefox that handle encoding transformations, e.g. TISCII <-> Unicode, etc.
It is a good general solution solving one-for-all, but the solution demands that user to install additional plugin to the browser. It also have to support major browsers and there is also issue with maintainance of user addon.
I believe server side conversion approach is better for maximal usability and ease of maintaince of Myanmar Wikipedia.
-- Andrew Cunningham Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator State Library of Victoria Australia
andrewc@vicnet.net.au lang.support@gmail.com
Wikimy-l mailing list Wikimy-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimy-l
Best regards, Okisan
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Although on the fly encoding transformations would be a step backwards for promoting uptake of Unicode 5.1.
It would provide less incentive for users to migrate to Unicode 5.1
I see it more as an opportunity to provide them an easy migration path. That is, if we are showing a page to someone in Zawgyi, we should put a big box on the page saying "You are using a out-dated font which does not meet web standards. Click here to learn more about this, and to upgrade to a modern font."
If encoding transformations are required, I'd suggest that rather than adding it to Mediawiki, such projects could be handled as an extesion or addon to a web browser, there are laready many similar projects for Firefox that handle encoding transformations, e.g. TISCII <-> Unicode, etc.
The only problem with this is that such extensions have to be downloaded and installed before they would work... whereas a conversion system allows unsophisticated users a way to get involved right away: we handle the tricky parts for them.
My understanding is that the site myanmarwikipedia.org is doing on the fly encoding transformations already, is that true? We can just use the same software, right? At least in theory?
--Jimbo
If encoding transformations are required, I'd suggest that rather than adding it to Mediawiki, such projects could be handled as an extesion or addon to a web browser, there are laready many similar projects for Firefox that handle encoding transformations, e.g. TISCII <-> Unicode,
etc.
The only problem with this is that such extensions have to be downloaded and installed before they would work... whereas a conversion system allows unsophisticated users a way to get involved right away: we handle the tricky parts for them.
Yes, correct but not for unsophisticaled users. No font installation. No extansion installation in Myanmar internetcafe.
My understanding is that the site myanmarwikipedia.org is doing on the fly encoding transformations already, is that true? We can just use the same software, right?
No, there is no conversion currently. myanmarwikipedia.org is quick-and-dirty web site. But my.wikipedia.org is slow-and-more-dirty web site.
At least in theory?
Yes. We are discussing a lot on thesehttp://www.myanmarwikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Myanmarwikipedia:%E1%80%94%E1%80%8A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B8%E1%80%95%E1%80%8A%E1%80%AC%E1%80%86%E1%80%AD%E1%80%AF%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%9B%E1%80%AC_%E1%80%B1%E1%80%86%E1%80%BC%E1%80%B8%E1%80%B1%E1%82%8F%E1%80%BC%E1%80%B8%E1%80%81%E1%80%94%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B8#Opensource_convertors.
Our member Ko Ye Myat Thu has Zawgyi <---> Unicode 5.1 conversion in MySQL. We have Zawgyi <---> Unicode 5.1 conversion in C#, C++, Python and javascript. Unfortunately no php.
Okisan