| Re: coding of dc:language [message #1110 is a reply to message #1109] |
Sun, 01 April 2012 06:18   |
Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Dirk,
I would not delete the <dc:language> in any case. If there is a need for code
page information this shall be additional.
The original thought about <dc:language> was to identify the language used for
that name, especially when you have a station like Bautzen/Budyšin with several
names in different languages.
--
Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen
On 30.03.2012 19:53, Dirk Bräuer wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I have added some examples on using Dublin Core Metadata Set to the Wiki pages.
> There was one response from Susanne concerning the item <dc:language>.
>
> Generally, this item shall be used to code character set of the names (e. g.
> station names a. s. o.) of the RailML file. This value is of importance in case
> the containing Unicode names have to be converted into a non-Unicode-string by
> the reading software.
>
> Originally, I wanted it to contain the Codepage Number of the data
> <dc:language>1252</dc:language> ;(1252=ANSI - Lateinisch I)
> because, from my experience, one does need a Codepage Number do convert
> non-Unicode strings.
>
> This did not enjoy Susanne who rather would prefer a coding like ISO 15924:
> <dc:language>de-CH</dc:language>
>
> The problem is that there is no 'conversion table' or something like that (as
> far as I know) to convert Codepage Numbers into ISO 15924 codes or vice versa.
> There is, unfortunately, no standardisation of Codepages at all. So if we do not
> allow the non-standardised Codepage Numbers we cannot tell the reading software
> how to convert the UTF-8 strings of a RailML file into non-Unicode strings. This
> leaves a reading software with the need to 'scan' the names for special
> characters and deduce a Codepage from this - a more empiric solution.
>
> The problem with the ISO 15924 codes is not only that there is no 'conversion
> table'. It is also that typically a RailML file contains names of more than one
> language, e. g. some foreign station names also. This is normally no problem
> because one Codepage normally allows languages of neighboring countries. Our
> 'middle-European' Codepage (1250) allows German Umlauts, Czech 'háčeks' (carons)
> and Sorbian/Polish 'striked-out L's'. But what should we write into
> <dc:language> if a RailML file contains all of these three and the writing
> programme only know that it is CodePage 1250?
>
> Anyway, it is not a big problem because it only applies to non-Unicode software
> and there should be not much non-Unicode software nowadays. It's only that we do
> not know...
>
> So, from my opinion we have two possible solutions:
> a) either to skip this <dc:language> at all and delete it from all examples
> b) or still to allow and recommend a Codepage number (!) there because it costs
> nothing, may help someone, and there is no other need for this element.
>
> It does not make sense to code it with ISO 15924 since, as I did explain, there
> is normally not _one_ source language for all the RailML file.
>
> @Susanne: If nobody answers this 'post' in a near future you can tell me at any
> time to delete this <dc:language> from the examples without further objection
> from me. I leave it up to you, doing nothing more from my side.
>
> With best regards,
> Dirk.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
