Le jeudi 13 mars 2008 à 19:08 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 18:47 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le jeudi 13 mars 2008 à 17:47 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > > > On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 09:41 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 01:25 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > >> One of the problems I have with "ban packages with unicode names" is > > > > >> that it doesn't consider what to do when a package name upstream is > > > > >> non-ASCii. > > > > > Transliterate/translate them to ASCII. > > > > > > > > > This is a proposal I am strongly -1 to. > > > > > > IMO, you are making fuzz about nothing. For most languages such native > > > transliterations exist. > > > > IMHO you are woefully unaware of the fuzziness of a transliteration > > process. > Manual transliteration? There's no such thing as a standard automated transliteration, because 1. there are many transliteration standards (from script to script, language to language, political regime to political regime) 2. they usually depend on word pronunciation (which is not the same as word writing, even for so-called phonetic scripts) Automated transliteration is about as safe as feeding a long multiclause contract to babelfish and betting your future income on the result. Natural language processing is hard. International natural language processing is harder. And that's without considering that Names are the quirk-est part of any language. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
