On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Frans Pop (email@example.com): > > With a good image there are differences (the latin characters look > > "thinner"). It should be up to the translators to decide. > > The most significant difference is probably in punctuation: periods, > > commas, dashes, brackets, etc. This is an aspect of the exclusion I had > > not really realized before. > > This is something I was considering: leave all punctuation characters > and maybe also digits as well. So, in short only strip the letters > (simple and accented). In this case it would result in e.g. the string ".com, .net, .edu" to have relatively fat periods and commas when compared to the the latin letters. I guess it depends on whether the script uses any of the punctuation characters itself (Amharic seems not to from the little bit I've seen), or whether they're only used "in the context" of latin characters. Anyway, seeing this has made me personally *less* in favor of stripping, except of course in cases where such differences are a lot less noticeable. > > Something else: at least one codepoint is missing in the Abyssinica > > font ATM. It shows up in the mirror country selection list: codepoint > > 1316. > > Hmmm, that should be reported to the font package. From what I see in > fontforge, a few other codepoints are missing: 1315, 1311, 12D7, etc. I think that should be up to the translator as maybe he has the alternative of using a different (combination of) characters. On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Davide Viti wrote: > It might be helpful to check existing codepoints in the ttf file using > the pdf chart ; in case anyone wanted to do this sort of checks note > that the "codepoints" column in the spellchecker page  lists the set > of codepoints used in the various po files > >  http://www.alioth.debian.org/~zinosat-guest/ttf-sil-abyssinica.pdf >  http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/spellcheck/level1/index.html Sounds like a job for the translator :-)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.