Svay Leng has asked:

> Could you please let me know about your comments on all items mentioned in
> document N2406. It seems that you comment only on some items to justify the
> existing code set and forcing to go ahead.

> Therefore I would like to say also that Khmer code set will be Cambodian
> standard , and the table itself is very important for Cambodian people not
> only the result of the encoding.
> Svay Leng

Please be patient;-) As we have seen in the discussions concerning COENG, there are many, many subpoints to each issue when they are considered technically. Hopefully each new issue can be covered in turn (hence my request that we move on from COENG to sorting/collation). This is an excellent forum for such discussions and there is much which can be learned from people who have been through the standardisation process with other
scripts.

May I add that personally I feel far too much emotion has been injected into this debate. The Khmer Unicode standard was established in the first place in order to preserve Khmer culture and writing (and the earlier the preservation process happens the better!). The COENG model was chosen because it appeared to best do that. Although there have been strong protestations in N2406 and discussions here against the model (and the linking of the Khmer script with its Indic roots), new evidence keeps cropping up that (at least to me;-)) validates that decision.

In part we are hampered by the lack of a wider range of Khmer linguistic experts participating in these discussions. Khmer Unicode is rooted in discussions (and a subsequent report) of a room full of Cambodia's leading linguists. There will necessarily be healthy differences of opinion, but they need to be in the context of rational discussion and respect. That kind of mutual trust was evident in those discussions.

My own experience in Cambodia led to some observations which probably colour my perspective: (1) In the hospital where I worked the highly educated doctors went to a much more junior member of staff to vet their Khmer speeches. He had been a monk for many years and understood the language much better than they...for the doctors had had most of their education in foreign languages. (2) The Khmers who came from Vietnam appeared the most intransigent (in a good sense) in the matter of preservation of Khmer culture. Those most under threat hold their positions most tenaciously.

However please remember that is NOT a discussion between people who are trying to destroy Khmer culture and those who are trying to preserve it. It is between people who are trying to understand the best way to preserve Khmer script information.

Sincerely,

Maurice

**********

> However please remember that is NOT a discussion between people who are
> trying to destroy Khmer culture and those who are trying to preserve it.
> It is between people who are trying to understand the best way to preserve
> Khmer script information.
>

Very sorry for this misunderstanding. I did not say that somebody are trying to destroy Khmer culture. I believe also that you did this work for Cambodia, not for destroying Khmer culture. Thank you very much for the hard work. Let me say there are some new concepts which are not appropriated (not familiar) for Khmer people, and there are also some process lacking of the presence our National Body. I also heart that the changing of the UNICODE is not allowed, except adding or deleting because may be some implementers already used this table(in reality, I did not hear that there are some implementers used the table). If somebody can say we will keep the Khmer UNICODE in suspense , may be all will be happy. It's a dream isn't it?

Regards.

Svay Leng

***********

At 09:31 +0900 2001-11-21, Svay Leng wrote:
>Could you please let me know about your comments on all items mentioned in
>document N2406. It seems that you comment only on some items to justify the
>existing code set and forcing to go ahead.

Well, there are good reasons for that, namely the stability of the standard and the suitability of the code set for encoding Khmer, but you are right we are obliged to discuss N2406. I will give it some attention tonight.

One of the things N2406 does is it criticises some errors in N2380, on page 10. Please understand that those are my typing errors. Maurice and I wrote that paper in only two days, staying up late at night, under extreme pressure because I had to fly to New York the morning we finished, and also because the Singapore conference was happening on the following Monday. We made the best contribution we could in the time we had, because we wanted to help with the conversations in Singapore even though we couldn't be there.

Best regards,
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com

***********

>Could you please let me know about your comments on all items mentioned in
>document N2406. It seems that you comment only on some items to justify the
>existing code set and forcing to go ahead.

I think Asmus' comments were directed at the debate between a virama model and an encoded-subscripts model, which appears to be the most serious issue that you have objected to. Before we ask Asmus or anyone else to consider all of the details of N2406, would it not be helpful to resolve this one particular issue?

- Peter
***********

On 11/20/2001 06:42:26 PM S Leng wrote:

>> I would argue that in the case of cultural rituals the modus of the
>> ceremony and the dress form very much part of the core, or essence of
>> the event, not just the 'outcome'. However, the same is not true for
>> processing bits in the bowels of a modern computer. In that sense the analogy is
>> seriously flawed.
>
>Therefore I would like to say also that Khmer code set will be Cambodian
>standard , and the table itself is very important for Cambodian people not
>only the result of the encoding.
>Svay Leng

99.99% of people in Canada, Germany, Russia, Greece, China, Japan, India, Thailand, etc. will never know how their text is encoded. Is it *really* believed that Cambodians will be different, or is it just a matter that a small group of people who happen to be reviewing the technical details of the encoding are concerned about cultural perceptions that should really only be a concern with regard to end users?

When people of the Czech republic contact Unicode or ISO and say, "This encoding doesn't fit out culture because we have another letter 'ch'," they are told that that can be handled by software implementations, just as other similar culture-specific issues have been handled. It doesn't seem to me that anything different has been shown to be necessary in this case.

- Peter