Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

... It also has nothing to do with Lars' claim, it has to do with a total failure to comprehend the standard which was applied.
...

I don't know what it is you think I am "claiming".  I am just highlighting that the rules are unclear. I fully understand it can be hard to see they are unclear if you are used to thinking of an alphabet according the the English definition. But obviously many users are not, hence the rule really should be clearified.

Quote:

I have said this numerous times and it remains as true today as it has always been the Rules were designed to reflect NO culture other than the data which is displayed ON SCREEN.

We know you are saying this. And we have told you that it isn't that simple. I know you consider yourself a bit of an expert on this as you speak multiple languages, but while you certainly know more than the average person knowing only one language, your knowledge is not up to professional level. That is obviously nothing to be ashame of (unless you are a professionel in an localization department obviously, and even there I would not expect the new guys to know these things).

Quote:

If data is not there, you cannot hallucinate it to be there, it either is or it is NOT.

Unfortunately the definition of things "being there" or "not being there" is based on a cultural interpretation of what you see on the screen. Sorry, it can't be helped. If you see "E" on the screen than that is all you see. If you change it to "e" you have made an interpretation. You might not agree, but as long as you do not understand that this is the argument for the rules not being clear - then you will just keep ranting on about "as credited" which we all (ok, almost all) agree on anyway.

Just to be clear again hoping you won't go on ranting about something I agree with:
I am not disagreeing with "as credited", I am simply pointing out that the rules are not clearly specifying how to convert the characters.

Quote:

Myonly regret is that since we don't support Unicode yet, we are trapped having to fudge some data which appears On Screen but we can't make appear in the Program, but that is something that we have no control over, we can only hope that one day this will be fixed.

When (if?) we get Unicode support we will have new arguments - should the dot over the "i" be added when converting I to lowercase. It hope the rules will be clear before we reach that step.

Quote:


But as, I said this is a complete refusal to understand the standard that was applied and why, and to attempt to use inflammatory comments such as "they don't know better", which speaking for this uuser I find insulting and offensive beyond belief.

Skip, one of the tasks I had in my many years in localization was educating developers on internationalization for a big enterprise level software company. Based on this I say "the average developer can not be expected to know this". After all, if they did they wouldn't have flown me around on three continents telling people about it.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing these details. There is always more to learn (also for me after so many years in the industry). As long as you are always willing to listen to people with more experience than yourself there are things to be learned. For languages you can learn alot hanging out with professionel translators - specifically when you work closely with them for years.

I specifically can't see how you can consider it an insult when I clearly state that if it wasn't because I have happened to end up working in a field that gave me extra experience I would have made the same mistake. Is it an insult that I do not specify that you are smarter than me - but just put us at the same level (or rather, do not specify a level at all)?

Quote:

This user is not an idiot, but if you really want to make such imlication, the idiots are those who refuse to comprehend the whys , wherefores and claim some sort BS cultural insensitivity. Argue with the people who put the data On Screen, maybe you can get them to change their ways. Good luck, jim and if you are caught or killed the Secretary will not disavow any knowledge of your actions.

Skip

Personally I do understand why the rules are as they are. I just do not understand why the rules can't be made clear, and why people insist of calling the English default rules for "neutral".

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

... It also has nothing to do with Lars' claim, it has to do with a total failure to comprehend the standard which was applied.
...

I don't know what it is you think I am "claiming".  I am just highlighting that the rules are unclear. I fully understand it can be hard to see they are unclear if you are used to thinking of an alphabet according the the English definition. But obviously many users are not, hence the rule really should be clearified.

Quote:

I have said this numerous times and it remains as true today as it has always been the Rules were designed to reflect NO culture other than the data which is displayed ON SCREEN.

We know you are saying this. And we have told you that it isn't that simple. I know you consider yourself a bit of an expert on this as you speak multiple languages, but while you certainly know more than the average person knowing only one language, your knowledge is not up to professional level. That is obviously nothing to be ashame of (unless you are a professionel in an localization department obviously, and even there I would not expect the new guys to know these things).

Quote:

If data is not there, you cannot hallucinate it to be there, it either is or it is NOT.

Unfortunately the definition of things "being there" or "not being there" is based on a cultural interpretation of what you see on the screen. Sorry, it can't be helped. If you see "E" on the screen than that is all you see. If you change it to "e" you have made an interpretation. You might not agree, but as long as you do not understand that this is the argument for the rules not being clear - then you will just keep ranting on about "as credited" which we all (ok, almost all) agree on anyway.

Just to be clear again hoping you won't go on ranting about something I agree with:
I am not disagreeing with "as credited", I am simply pointing out that the rules are not clearly specifying how to convert the characters.

Quote:

Myonly regret is that since we don't support Unicode yet, we are trapped having to fudge some data which appears On Screen but we can't make appear in the Program, but that is something that we have no control over, we can only hope that one day this will be fixed.

When (if?) we get Unicode support we will have new arguments - should the dot over the "i" be added when converting I to lowercase. It hope the rules will be clear before we reach that step.

Quote:


But as, I said this is a complete refusal to understand the standard that was applied and why, and to attempt to use inflammatory comments such as "they don't know better", which speaking for this uuser I find insulting and offensive beyond belief.

Skip, one of the tasks I had in my many years in localization was educating developers on internationalization for a big enterprise level software company. Based on this I say "the average developer can not be expected to know this". After all, if they did they wouldn't have flown me around on three continents telling people about it.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing these details. There is always more to learn (also for me after so many years in the industry). As long as you are always willing to listen to people with more experience than yourself there are things to be learned. For languages you can learn alot hanging out with professionel translators - specifically when you work closely with them for years.

I specifically can't see how you can consider it an insult when I clearly state that if it wasn't because I have happened to end up working in a field that gave me extra experience I would have made the same mistake. Is it an insult that I do not specify that you are smarter than me - but just put us at the same level (or rather, do not specify a level at all)?

Quote:

This user is not an idiot, but if you really want to make such imlication, the idiots are those who refuse to comprehend the whys , wherefores and claim some sort BS cultural insensitivity. Argue with the people who put the data On Screen, maybe you can get them to change their ways. Good luck, jim and if you are caught or killed the Secretary will not disavow any knowledge of your actions.

Skip

Personally I do understand why the rules are as they are. I just do not understand why the rules can't be made clear, and why people insist of calling the English default rules for "neutral".

No, it is not. It is physical data  on the screen, Lars. When you watch CE3K you will see the credit for Francois Truffaut NOT François Truffaut, to pretend that there is a ç is , fooling yourself or trying to fool the world. FACTUALLY the ç does not appear on the SCREEN, you cannot argue that point. You can make alkl the claims you wish including what you see FRANCOIS, not Francois and in France when they revert to lower case they use the ç, except that therv are plenty of films where you will see a credit Francois, or FRANÇOIS, What you failed to comprehend in your little discussion is that it was YOUR insulting comment "they don't know better". Who is they? Since I was intimately involved to the point that I know PRECISELY how it was set up and why, then I presume you are to ME, and for YOUR information, sir, I do KNOW better as you put it. But that is not WHY the system was set up the way it is. If you start whining because a set of credits are in French and you want them to be in Japanese, I will tell you the same thing COPY what is on the screen. If the credits are in Latin copy what is ON SCREEN. It is NOT about culture, despite your and others belief otherwise, it is based soley on REAL LIFE data, not data cooked up in your head.  The RULES are indeed very clear, the Rules say to copy the data EXACTLY as it appears On Screen and in EXACTLY the same order, I presume I do NOT have to define the word EXACTLY for you...do. You and others are the ones wanting there to be some sort of cultural bias...take it up with Hollywood. And stop with this absolutely ridiculous argument.

And I swear Lars, if you one more time intimate that I am a dumd hick who doesn't know better. I can match you step for step, bub. My languages are very rusty but i am fluemnt in SIX lanmguages and a smattering of a seventh. I can and have held my own in places all over the world just as you have, you are a smart man, BUT you aren't samrter than I. Maybe as smart, but not smarter.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I have to disagree.  The conversion isn't based on English rules.  The conversion, as Ken has explained it, is based on character sets.

The character sets include a number of representations of the various characters. It does not make a statement on what represents what. This is why you need to specify the culture to use when asking a computer to convert between upper and lower case.

Quote:

From what I can tell, just about every lower case letter that includes an accent, a circumflex, a tilde, etc., etc., has a coresponding upper case letter.  That being the case, the people entering the credits had a choice.  If the lower case letter was 'ñ', they could have used 'Ñ'.  If the lower case letter was 'ç', they could have used 'Ç'.

The convertion you are talking about is (as far as I can see) the one you get if you specify the "invariant" culture in the latest .NET Framework. And yes, you can find it referred to as "neutral" in other places (which are all older, Microsoft - as many others -also used the wrong term "neutral" for a long time until they realized it wasn't really correct.

Quote:

Our mandate, for Profiler purposes, is to reproduce...as best we can in mixed case...the credits of the film.  That means, if the credits don't use 'special characters', neither do we.  That is, to me, the very definition of 'neutral'.

Sop if we get Unicode support, you want to remove the dot over "i" when I has been converted to lowercase. Somehow I fear you will find the English users out in force against that one.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
No, it is not. It is physical data  on the screen, Lars. When you watch CE3K you will see the credit for Francois Truffaut NOT François Truffaut, to pretend that there is a ç is , fooling yourself or trying to fool the world.  FACTUALLY the ç does not appear on the SCREEN, you cannot argue that point. You can make alkl the claims you wish including what you see FRANCOIS, not Francois and in France when they revert to lower case they use the ç, except that therv are plenty of films where you will see a credit Francois, or FRANÇOIS,

I am not claiming there is a "ç". Nor am I claiming there is a "c". I am claiming there is an "C" and the rules are ambiguous on how to convert this to lower case. I happen to know this is the case based on professionel experience.

Quote:


What you failed to comprehend in your little discussion is that it was YOUR insulting comment "they don't know better". Who is they?

They are people who refer to the "invariant" (in lack of a better name) convertion between upper and lower case as "neutral". And if you read the sentence I wrote after the one you found insulting, you would see that I am quite certain that I would have been one of them if I not (accidentely) had ended up in a business where I had to learn the difference (and it took me a couple of years to learn it). I do not know why you would find it insulting when I wrote that I would not be any better myself it it wasn't because I happened to have to learn the details professionelly. I did certainly not mean it insulting, but English is my second language so maybe it reads more insulting than I intended? If that is the case I am sorry.

Quote:

Since I was intimately involved to the point that I know PRECISELY how it was set up and why, then I presume you are to ME, and for YOUR information, sir, I do KNOW better as you put it. But that is not WHY the system was set up the way it is.

Skip, will you please stop arguing as if I said the interpretation of the rules is wrong. I am not saying that. Nowhere in this thread can you see me say it. I doubt you can find any post from me stating this (though I have been drunk and/or tirednow and then, so I can't promise anything) .

What I am simply saying is:
1) The current rules are ambigious
2) The term "neutral" is not precise enough to specify how the convertion should be done. It should be spelled out.

I am saying nothing more than those two things. Please do not read things I do not write.

Quote:

If you start whining because a set of credits are in French and you want them to be in Japanese, I will tell you the same thing COPY what is on the screen. If the credits are in Latin copy what is ON SCREEN. It is NOT about culture, despite your and others belief otherwise, it is based soley on REAL LIFE data, not data cooked up in your head.  The RULES are indeed very clear, the Rules say to copy the data EXACTLY as it appears On Screen and in EXACTLY the same order, I presume I do NOT have to define the word EXACTLY for you...do. You and others are the ones wanting there to be some sort of cultural bias...take it up with Hollywood. And stop with this absolutely ridiculous argument.

This argumentation is based on the assumption that I am arguing something that I am simply not saying anything about. The post that insultet you so much even stated that I did not think it was cultural bias, what more do you want me to do?

Quote:

And I swear Lars, if you one more time intimate that I am a dumd hick who doesn't know better. I can match you step for step, bub. My languages are very rusty but i am fluemnt in SIX lanmguages and a smattering of a seventh.

No where have I said you where not as smart as me. I clearly acknowledged I most likely would have made the same mistake as you if I hadn't worked preofessionelly with software localization. Before I did, my experience was also based on speaking multiple languages. It took me years to realize that there was no such things as neutral, and I do not hold it against anyone that they are not aware of this. That doesn't change that this is how it works though.

Quote:

I can and have held my own in places all over the world just as you have, you are a smart man, BUT you aren't samrter than I. Maybe as smart, but not smarter.

Correct, without the work in software localization I would never have picked up on this.

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:

The character sets include a number of representations of the various characters. It does not make a statement on what represents what. This is why you need to specify the culture to use when asking a computer to convert between upper and lower case.

Maybe I am missing something, but who is asking a computer to convert between upper and lower case? 

This is what I know.  When I look at my character map, the letter 'Ç' is called "Latin Capital Letter C with Cedilla."  There is a coresponding lower case letter, the letter 'ç', which is called "Latin Small Letter C with Cedilla."

When I enter credits, and see a capital letter with and accent, or a tilde, or a cedilla, I do not apply and English, French, Spanish, or any other cultural standard.  I go to my character map and look for the coresponding lower case letter.  To me, that is as neutral as it gets...unless I am missing something. 

Quote:

The convertion you are talking about is (as far as I can see) the one you get if you specify the "invariant" culture in the latest .NET Framework. And yes, you can find it referred to as "neutral" in other places (which are all older, Microsoft - as many others -also used the wrong term "neutral" for a long time until they realized it wasn't really correct.

I was going by what Ken said, as I quoted above.  Are you telling me that the character set is different, say, in France?  Does 'Ç' not exist on a French computer?

Quote:

Sop if we get Unicode support, you want to remove the dot over "i" when I has been converted to lowercase. Somehow I fear you will find the English users out in force against that one.

Similar to what I said above, my character map lists 'I' as the "Latin Capital Letter I" with a corresponding lower case letter of 'i', which is the "Latin Small Letter I."  If you are saying this is different in France, I guess I will have to take your word for it.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Here is an excellent example from within a relatively recent film. And this is why we follow the data, Lars, NOT somebodies imaginings or hallucinations as to what is interpreted to be ON SCREEN.

In this film we an actor credited as Isaach De Bankole somebody has produced a Common Name for him of Isaach De Bankolé

We also have an actor credited as Sébastien Foucan and someone has asigned a common name oi
Sebastien Foucan.

Now who is right and who is wriong. If we accept the TWO common names as correct or proper whichever is true. Then the data is handled inconsistently by the filmmakers, which i would say is highly unlikey, especially given this particular film. But there are those who think they know more than the filmmakers and that their nationalistic bias must be followed. BULL, plain and simple, what we follow is the data, nothing more and nothing less, imaginings, hallucinations, nationalistic bias...belong in ONLY one place and that is NOT the Online.

If you can't follow that then there is absolutely no purpose to progressing further.

Skip

A quick look would leave one to guess that IMDb was used for these two names, as that is how they credit them.

In this case the credits use 'É' in credits that are all-caps to show that 'Sébastien Foucan' uses 'é' not 'e'. This makes it clear that for these credits; 'E' maps to 'e' and 'É' maps to 'é'.  But in many other cases there are no marks added to any of the characters in the all-caps credits, I would say that it is not as clear.

I don't think that anyone here is claiming that they know more than the filmmakers. But some of us claim that as a mater of style 'é' might get mapped to 'É' or to 'E'.

pdf

Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
(...)
I don't think that anyone here is claiming that they know more than the filmmakers. But some of us claim that as a mater of style 'é' might get mapped to 'É' or to 'E'.

pdf

I believe, though not positive, that it is this 'might' that Ken is trying to eliminate with his clarification.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Here is an excellent example from within a relatively recent film. And this is why we follow the data, Lars, NOT somebodies imaginings or hallucinations as to what is interpreted to be ON SCREEN.

In this film we an actor credited as Isaach De Bankole somebody has produced a Common Name for him of Isaach De Bankolé

We also have an actor credited as Sébastien Foucan and someone has asigned a common name oi
Sebastien Foucan.

Now who is right and who is wriong. If we accept the TWO common names as correct or proper whichever is true. Then the data is handled inconsistently by the filmmakers, which i would say is highly unlikey, especially given this particular film. But there are those who think they know more than the filmmakers and that their nationalistic bias must be followed. BULL, plain and simple, what we follow is the data, nothing more and nothing less, imaginings, hallucinations, nationalistic bias...belong in ONLY one place and that is NOT the Online.

If you can't follow that then there is absolutely no purpose to progressing further.

Skip

You keep imagining random viewpoints you think I have and rant on about them for eternity.

Please try to slow down. Read the following word for word. Once you have read it, try to go back and read it again slowly:

I am NOT saying the rules are wrong. I am NOT saying Kens interpretation is wrong. I am saying the rules themselves are unclear and ambiguous.

If you think I am arguing for the rules being wrong then you still haven't understood it. Go back and read again.