[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Word syntax question
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Word syntax question |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:11:20 +0900 |
Miles Bader writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >> > See char-script-table, forward-word also stops at a script boundary.
> >>
> >> That seems kind of broken in this case -- it's quite common for
> >> "phonetic" characters to be intermixed in a word with latin characters,
> >> and certainly nobody thinks of those boundaries as being word
> >> boundaries.
> >
> > I agree. I think we should introduce a user option to control whether
> > it stops on script boundaries or not, because sometimes it makes
> > sense, sometimes it doesn't.
>
> But a global setting seems far too course, and in general, whether it's
> "right" or not seems like it depends more on the precise mixture of
> scripts rather than a user's personal preferences.
AFAIK Unicode has solved this problem, but I forget where I saw it.
If my memory is correct, that supports Miles's opinion.
In general, I think that if the scripts are for different human
languages, it's almost always the case that a script boundary is a
word boundary. (But I'm biased, because I deal with that daily in
ordinary Japanese text, where that is the case.) If one script is not
language-specific (IPA is really the only one I can think of), it's
not. Note that for something like Japanese which has three separate
scripts (hiragana, katakana, and kanji) which are separately
standardized (JIS X 0201 for katakana, and JIS X 0213 for the others)
this care for different scripts, same language already needs to be made.
So it seems to me that an exceptional case for IPA (make it a member
of all language groups, or perhaps of those that use the Latin
alphabet?) should be sufficient.