Template talk:Script
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latnf is a problem, Fraktur letters are separately encoded at 1D56C-1D59F (bold), 1D504-1D537, pluis C: 0212D, H: 0210C, I: 02111, R: 0211C, Z: 02128, long s: 017F. Supported e.g. by Code2001.
- 𝔄 𝔅 ℭ 𝔇 𝔈 𝔉 𝔊 ℌ ℑ 𝔍 𝔎 𝔏 𝔐 𝔑 𝔒 𝔓 𝔔 ℜ 𝔖 𝔗 𝔘 𝔙 𝔚 𝔛 𝔜 ℨ 𝔞 𝔟 𝔠 𝔡 𝔢 𝔣 𝔤 𝔥 𝔦 𝔧 𝔨 𝔩 𝔪 𝔫 𝔬 𝔭 𝔮 𝔯 𝔰 𝔱 𝔲 𝔳 𝔴 𝔵 𝔶 𝔷
- 𝕬 𝕭 𝕮 𝕯 𝕰 𝕱 𝕲 𝕳 𝕴 𝕵 𝕶 𝕷 𝕸 𝕹 𝕺 𝕻 𝕼 𝕽 𝕾 𝕿 𝖀 𝖁 𝖂 𝖃 𝖄 𝖅 𝖆 𝖇 𝖈 𝖉 𝖊 𝖋 𝖌 𝖍 𝖎 𝖏 𝖐 𝖑 𝖒 𝖓 𝖔 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 𝖘 ſ 𝖙 𝖚 𝖛 𝖜 𝖝 𝖞 𝖟
Choosing "Latf" should however somehow map an ascii string on these letters.
another problem is Nasta'liq script, considered a font variant by both Unicode and ISO 15924. This will need a solution like {{cuneiform}} where the font variant can be selected by an additional parameter.
- The "Fraktur" block is intended for mathematical symbols only. Latnf should not map to those, but enforce various Fraktur typefaces. A difficult choice, since there exists a large number of these but none seems to be somehow the 'standard Fraktur' font recommended for Latnf. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:lang
Hello, I'd like to ask in which cases this template should be used instead of {{lang}}/{{rtl-lang}}. There are a lot of multilingual templates, and this confuses the user if they are for the same purposes. Couldn't this template be merged with these other more general one (via CSS styles, for example)? Best regards —surueña 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- this template is intended to address rendering issues, e.g. switching between various modes of cuneiform. There is currently no ISO code that would allow you, say, to distinguish between Old Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian cuneiform, it's all just "Xsux". A similar case is Nastaliq. Also, there are ISO scripts that are not necessarily used with a particular language, such as "Latf".
- it is intended for cases where the script itself is under discussion. E.g., when discussing Cyrillic letters, there is no pertinent language code except 'und' "undetermined", since the string А Б В Г Д Є Ж is not in any particular language. Granted, there is nothing wrong with just using 'und' А Б В Г Д Є Ж since it is clear anyway that these characters are Cyrillic, no need to annotate that.
dab (𒁳) 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see, these aren't easy use cases... :-) First of all, it is worth noting that these are very "rare" cases, I mean, only a few people will really write about these topics. My main objection with this template is that it is not needed to enforce the language code (because in some cases this is the purpose of the template, of course, adding the 'und' language code). So I'm afraid of wikipedians widely using this script template to tag normal words, i.e. where the language should be specified. So as you said, for the second case, when the script itself is being discussed it is easy to document that the editors should use {{lang}} with the undetermined language code. For the case about specifying the cuneiform epoch, I think that this is a difficult topic: few people has installed a font for rendering cuneiform (there are even no fonts available for all the different epochs), so I would rather use images rather than forcing the wikipedians to install multiple fonts. However, if a template is really needed for this usage, I must say that I suppose this is one of those few cases where a specific {{cuneiform}} template should be created (again). Even if there are more ancient languages where the epoch should be specified, I not sure whether a common template should be created to handle them because it would be misused very easily. Finally, for the case about Nasta'liq, I would like to ask if a possible solution is to employ this callygraphy when the language is Persian, Pashto or Urdu (in the CSS, e.g. via {{lang}}). I really think your template is awesome, and in fact I think a lot of its functionality should be added to template lang, but in my opinion only the minimum number of multi-language templates should be available otherwise editors would be confused, and this script template can be easily (and it is being) misused. We can create private language/script codes for the Wikipedia (in fact, we will have to create and document private language code for transliterations, until the W3C creates a standard solution). What do you think? Best regards, —surueña 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
surueña, this template is intended to address the "difficult cases". It should only be used by people who know what they are doing, and I do not suggest that it should be used widely. However, there are a few cases where it is (still) necessary to use it: the enforcing of script variants that are considered font variants by Unicode (Latf, Latg, variants of Xsux and Ital). These are the rare cases where we are forced to give a list of known fonts for those users who have them installed. Obviously, if a system doesn't have a font with the script, there is nothing we can do to render it. How this template should and should not be used should be stated in its documentation, as with every other template. I would be happy with a good css solution for Nastaliq though. For Latg, since we don't want Irish rendered in Latg by default, this could be done in the css for "ga-Latg", "mga-Latg" and "sga-Latg", exclusively. Similarly, "de-Latf", "en-Latf" etc. Similarly, for Xsux, we could distinguish "sux-Xsux" and "akk-Xsux". Unfortunately, "akk-Xsux" could be either Old or Neo-Assyrian (but the difference between the Old and the Neo-Assyrian script is considerable -- I know there are no widespread fonts yet, I'm looking into the future here). As I say in the doc, I never even got round to addressing Hani, this should be done cleanly in the css. Since Unicode is now recognizing Coptic as separate, this is not a problem any more, but we still do need a disambiguation of the various Old Italic scripts (Ital). No, I do not think we should introduce idiosyncratic language or script codes. If there are no ISO codes, we should use specialized templates, not the css. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- there are other cases, such as {{Coptic}} and {{Hebrew}} that are here only for historical reasons. These should indeed be addressed in the css, and after that, use of the script template should be deprecated. But they have to be addressed properly first. Thus, for Hebrew, the css should anticipate all of "he", "yi", "yi-Hebr", "lad-Hebr", "ar-Hebr", "und-Hebr", and if possible any "...-Hebr" code. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Language codes
Hi, I've notice that in all scripts supported the language code is added to the HTML code (either a fixed language code for {{script/Runic}}, {{script/Gaelic}} or {{script/Coptic}}, or 'und' for undermited if not specified in {{Script/Nastaliq}}) but Hebrew and Cuneiform. Any reason why for these two scripts the language code is not included, not even 'und'? Thanks. —surueña 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am unsure if language codes should at all be included, or if we should give 'und' whenever this template is used (see above...). I guess I missed Hebrew. Cuneiform should also give 'und'. Maybe we could allow an optiona paramenter for the langauge code, and give 'und' whenever it is omitted. Feel free to fiddle with this. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Old Church Slavonic
How to go about adding support for Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic for this template?
Unicode 5.1 recently added quite a few characters to properly support these, and there are only a few fonts available with partial support so far. More info at wikt:Appendix:Old Cyrillic alphabet and wikt:Appendix talk:Old Cyrillic alphabet.
These languages both (unfortunately) share language codes cu/chu/chu, and are supposed to be used with the script code Cyrs (see Early Cyrillic alphabet), which has different typographic standards from the modern Cyrillic alphabet (Cyrl). In case it matters, Old East Slavic (orv) and other languages may require or optionally use this script.
A suitable font list currently would be "Menaion, Menaion Medieval, Dilyana, Code2000, Lazov", but due to incomplete support would have to be updated as soon as better fonts are available. A larger font size would be beneficial too, since these fonts are very small. This should probably be applied in all browsers, not just MSIE, because the set of code points used overlaps with regular Cyrillic, and a mix of font families would be unreadable and terribly ugly.
A suitable short name for this would be Slavonic, which is commonly used in a historical and academic context.
