Hi all
as a rule cybercafes tend to be responsive to users. If enough users ask for Unicode 5.1 support, and there are enough Unicode 5.1 sites, then cybercafes will support it.
And the reality is that proper Burmese support in applications will be built on Unicode 5.1, wether its OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Microsoft applications, etc
Burmese locale support is Unicode 5.1 based. Line breaking and collation routines that ake their way into major applications will be Uniocde 5/1 based, etc.
The question is how you facilitate the uptake rather than encouraging people not to migrate.
2008/7/26 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com
- As mentioned in Ko Ngwe Tun's previous
discussion, we use internet cafe computers and have less option for installing new fonts or browser based addon.
IT experts in Myanmar should certainly be encouraging internet cafés to migrate to Unicode 5.1. And if there are Facebook or Flicker sites using non-Unicode encodings, those should also be encouraged to migrate, as Htoo and I have been trying to do with the Wikipedia.
I'd agree, but there is one key issue nobody seems to be addressing. Most users are using a pre-Vista version of Windows, and currently I am unaware of any legal software solutions for rendering Myanmar Unicode 5.1 on pre-Vista Windows, other than a handful of specialist SIL applications running Graphite, and some very old experiemnts in Firefox and OpenOffice
For uptake, it needs to be easy and free or very very cheap.
- Myanmar Unicode has history of breaking
previous version and luck of migration support. It is rather strange that there is NO convertor available for myanmar1 (Unicode 4.0) to myanmar2 (Unicode 4.1) or myanmar2 to myanmar3 (Unicode 5.1).
It isn't Unicode's place to make such a converter. The owners of myanmar1, myanmar2, and myanmar3 should have a care for the problem. But there *are* converters available for text conversion.
agree, and from memory a nnumber of convertors exist
- Unicode font are not redistributation (yes
Some fonts are re distributable, but Uniscribe isn't.
- Unicode font input methods are low quality,
extra cost or branding. Zawgyi uers has long being enjoy phonetic input.
This is a furphy.
There is absolutely no reason why Unicode 5.1 can't be phonetic. Although I question why it should be phoentic or more properly psuedo-phonetic.
Likewise a keyboard layout could be either based on a logical or visual keyboard layout.
This is just an implementation issue, the reality is that keyboard layout developers choose to implement keyboards certain ways, using certain technologies.
Zawgyi users are forced to encode their language texts in a non-standard way. This will only hurt them, and Myanmar, in the long run, as it does in the short run.
From the point of view of keyboard layout design principles the Zawgyi keyboard layout is sub-optimal with many design problems. Even if you decide to implement a phonetic keyboard for Unicode 5.1 you would not base it on the Zawgyi layout. The Zawgyi layout uses teh same approach as legacy 8-bit fonts essentally. The Zawgyi layout indicates that the font doesn't support complex rendering, and the layout wasn't implemented for a "smart" input system.
Myanmar Wikipedia should not take the burdon. At bottom line, Wkipedia is providing knowledge, not font. Also people don't think Wikipedia is good enough to install a new font.
In part I'd agree, Myanmar Wikipedia should not be a burden. Although I don't think that avoiding font downlaods solves teh problem.
At some point people will start migrating, Optimising the CSS will allow people to use any Uniocde 5.1 font they have is a necessary approach. Hopefully over tiem they determien which font suits tehir needs best. I'd rather ot tie it to a single font, whether its one particular uniocde 5.1 font or Zawgyi.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Andrew Cunningham lang.support@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all
as a rule cybercafes tend to be responsive to users.
If enough users ask for Unicode 5.1 support, and there are enough Unicode
5.1 sites, then cybercafes will support it.
Theoretically that is true. But I have got to explain a bit here more.
Reality is different. People love Zawgyi (non-gov) over Unicode 5.1 (gov). People don't know usefulness of Unicode 5.1, but just know it does't look good. Frankly I don't think people will install Unicode 5.1 font, unless there is a change of image.
And the reality is that proper Burmese support in applications will be built on Unicode 5.1, wether its OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Microsoft applications, etc
True. OpenOffice is the first largest localization in 5.1. But who use Burmese localization of OpenOffice? Nobody use it.
Burmese locale support is Unicode 5.1 based. Line breaking and collation routines that ake their way into major applications will be Uniocde 5/1 based, etc.
The question is how you facilitate the uptake rather than encouraging people not to migrate.
Unicode transition is a long plan. It is just not possible immediate transition as my.wikipedia.org doing.
I am very disappointment that Mr Jimbo Wales and Mr Micheal Everson think that people will migrate to 5.1 just by tell them 5.1 is better then Zawgyi.
*People will not imgrate to 5.1 just because of 5.1 is better. People need trust and love.*
Okisan
2008/7/26 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com
- As mentioned in Ko Ngwe Tun's previous
discussion, we use internet cafe computers and have less option for installing new fonts or browser based addon.
IT experts in Myanmar should certainly be encouraging internet cafés to migrate to Unicode 5.1. And if there are Facebook or Flicker sites using non-Unicode encodings, those should also be encouraged to migrate, as Htoo and I have been trying to do with the Wikipedia.
I'd agree, but there is one key issue nobody seems to be addressing. Most users are using a pre-Vista version of Windows, and currently I am unaware of any legal software solutions for rendering Myanmar Unicode 5.1 on pre-Vista Windows, other than a handful of specialist SIL applications running Graphite, and some very old experiemnts in Firefox and OpenOffice
For uptake, it needs to be easy and free or very very cheap.
- Myanmar Unicode has history of breaking
previous version and luck of migration support. It is rather strange that there is NO convertor available for myanmar1 (Unicode 4.0) to myanmar2 (Unicode 4.1) or myanmar2 to myanmar3 (Unicode 5.1).
It isn't Unicode's place to make such a converter. The owners of myanmar1, myanmar2, and myanmar3 should have a care for the problem. But there *are* converters available for text conversion.
agree, and from memory a nnumber of convertors exist
- Unicode font are not redistributation (yes
Some fonts are re distributable, but Uniscribe isn't.
- Unicode font input methods are low quality,
extra cost or branding. Zawgyi uers has long being enjoy phonetic input.
This is a furphy.
There is absolutely no reason why Unicode 5.1 can't be phonetic. Although I question why it should be phoentic or more properly psuedo-phonetic.
Likewise a keyboard layout could be either based on a logical or visual keyboard layout.
This is just an implementation issue, the reality is that keyboard layout developers choose to implement keyboards certain ways, using certain technologies.
Zawgyi users are forced to encode their language texts in a non-standard way. This will only hurt them, and Myanmar, in the long run, as it does in the short run.
From the point of view of keyboard layout design principles the Zawgyi keyboard layout is sub-optimal with many design problems. Even if you decide to implement a phonetic keyboard for Unicode 5.1 you would not base it on the Zawgyi layout. The Zawgyi layout uses teh same approach as legacy 8-bit fonts essentally. The Zawgyi layout indicates that the font doesn't support complex rendering, and the layout wasn't implemented for a "smart" input system.
Myanmar Wikipedia should not take the burdon. At bottom line, Wkipedia is providing knowledge, not font. Also people don't think Wikipedia is good enough to install a new font.
In part I'd agree, Myanmar Wikipedia should not be a burden. Although I don't think that avoiding font downlaods solves teh problem.
At some point people will start migrating, Optimising the CSS will allow people to use any Uniocde 5.1 font they have is a necessary approach. Hopefully over tiem they determien which font suits tehir needs best. I'd rather ot tie it to a single font, whether its one particular uniocde 5.1 font or Zawgyi.
-- 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
At 09:20 +0900 2008-07-27, Kyaw Tun wrote:
Reality is different. People love Zawgyi (non-gov) over Unicode 5.1 (gov). People don't know usefulness of Unicode 5.1, but just know it does't look good. Frankly I don't think people will install Unicode 5.1 font, unless there is a change of image.
And what are you doing to actively change that image? Nothing? You've set up your own myanmarwikipedia.org, for instance, so they don't have to change from your proprietary font to Unicode. Your own website suggests that you may never support Unicode 5.1: http://www.zawgyi.org/usr-Okisan-when%20will%20zawgyi%20be%20unicode%205.1%2...
Here you have attacked Htoo http://www.zawgyi.org/usr-zawgyi_one-defining_and_defying_the_standard_padau... claiming "monopolistic practices by sysops". This is offensive and you should not keep this on your website.
This page http://www.zawgyi.org/usr-zawgyi_one-going_wrong_with_users_myanmar_wikipedi... is full of your false allegations.
This comment http://my.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sithu015 made by Okisan on a my.wikipedia.org talk page suggests to me that he should not be made a sysop, anyway.
On your own front page http://www.zawgyi.org/ you state, wrongly: "MyWikipedia Myanmar Wikipedia: Now accepting Unicode 5.1 MyWikipedia has secret plan to skip Unicode 5.1 to Unicode 5.2. Unicode 5.2 is unheard of, not even Myanmar NLP." This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. New Myanmar characters will be added in Unicode 5.2 or 6.0 or whatever it will be called, but they will not impact the Burmese language; they are for minority languages. Yes, Unicode fonts supporting the Myanmar script should, in due course, support these characters. And here along with nonsense about "secret plans" http://www.zawgyi.org/usr-zawgyi_one-Myanmar_Wikipedia_Now_accepting_Unicode... you have simply said that you do not want my.wikipedia.org to migrate to Unicode 5.1: "removing [Zawgyi] out of Myanmar Wikipedia is completely unacceptable".
Jimbo, this brings us back to the entente that Andrew and I had about how to move things forward.
2008/7/27 Kyaw Tun kyawtuns@gmail.com
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all
as a rule cybercafes tend to be responsive to users.
If enough users ask for Unicode 5.1 support, and there are enough Unicode
5.1 sites, then cybercafes will support it.
Theoretically that is true. But I have got to explain a bit here more.
Reality is different. People love Zawgyi (non-gov) over Unicode 5.1 (gov). People don't know usefulness of Unicode 5.1, but just know it does't look good. Frankly I don't think people will install Unicode 5.1 font, unless there is a change of image.
although i do hope to get Burmese line-breaking into Firefox and other applications, once that starts to happen I suspect that the Zawgyi font will start to break in websites. Zawgyi is incompatible with the Unicode approach to Burmese, and as soon as more sophisticated support evloves I suspect that we'll start to see problems with Zawgyi.
strange most of the Unicode 5.1 development work I've seen has had nothing to do with the government.
basically there seems to be an education and information aspect to Unicode 5.1 that seems to be missing at present.
Burmese locale support is Unicode 5.1 based. Line breaking and collation routines that ake their way into major applications will be Uniocde 5/1 based, etc.
The question is how you facilitate the uptake rather than encouraging people not to migrate.
Unicode transition is a long plan. It is just not possible immediate transition as my.wikipedia.org doing.
Partly I'd agree to that point, but I'd argue that it would be bettter to put the effort into assisting and speeding up the transition. If that makes sense?
I am very disappointment that Mr Jimbo Wales and Mr Micheal Everson think that people will migrate to 5.1 just by tell them 5.1 is better then Zawgyi.
*People will not imgrate to 5.1 just because of 5.1 is better. People need trust and love.*
So my question is, what is the Burmese developer community doing to instill that trust? At the moment the developer community (who should be taking the lead) is divided.
It would appear to me that if the Burmese community isn't ready for Unicode 5.1 then they aren't ready for Unicode based services such as Wikipedia either?
One of my concerns is that if developers block the uptake of Unicode 5.1 it will set back the development of minority languages, unless Burmese is by passed and all the advances occur within minority langauges rather than Burmese?
Andrew
Kyaw Tun wrote:
Reality is different. People love Zawgyi (non-gov) over Unicode 5.1 (gov). People don't know usefulness of Unicode 5.1, but just know it does't look good. Frankly I don't think people will install Unicode 5.1 font, unless there is a change of image.
I want to help change that image. I understand that Zawgyi is a better looking font today? And that the actual developer of the glyphs has agreed that they can be ported over to the Unicode 5.1 font set? How long will that take? Who can do it? How can I support that work?
I am very disappointment that Mr Jimbo Wales and Mr Micheal Everson think that people will migrate to 5.1 just by tell them 5.1 is better then Zawgyi.
I don't think that. That's why I support that my.wikipedia.org should have a solution which supports everyone for now, and encourages people to upgrade as soon as they can. :)
*People will not imgrate to 5.1 just because of 5.1 is better. People need trust and love.*
Okisan
I agree with that completely. Will you help me help people build that trust and love? You could start by retracting some of the false claims you have made against others.
--Jimbo
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Kyaw Tun wrote:
Reality is different. People love Zawgyi (non-gov) over Unicode 5.1 (gov). People don't know usefulness of Unicode 5.1, but just know it does't look good. Frankly I don't think people will install Unicode 5.1 font, unless there is a change of image.
I want to help change that image.
Yes, that is most important.
I understand that Zawgyi is a better looking font today?
No bias. True.
And that the actual developer of the glyphs has agreed that they can be ported over to the Unicode 5.1 font set?
I would like to explain at length about this issue. Please see in my next mail.
How long will that take?
Possibily, it has been done by MyMyanmar.
Who can do it?
Zaw Win Myat + (MyMyamamr or Solvere)
How can I support that work?
Money
I am very disappointment that Mr Jimbo Wales and Mr Micheal Everson think
that people will migrate to 5.1 just by tell them 5.1 is better then Zawgyi.
I don't think that. That's why I support that my.wikipedia.org should have a solution which supports everyone for now, and encourages people to upgrade as soon as they can. :)
I see. Great although late.
*People will not imgrate to 5.1 just because of 5.1 is better. People need
trust and love.* Okisan
I agree with that completely. Will you help me help people build that trust and love?
I had a reason for hate on 5.1. Please see my next mail.
You could start by retracting some of the false claims you have made against others.
No. I don't make false claims. Everybody has right to express.
--Jimbo
Okisan