Document encoding is the most important but also the most sensitive and explosive topic in Internet internationalization. It is an essential factor since most of the information distributed over the Internet is in text format. But the history of the Internet is such that the predominant - and in some cases the only possible - encoding is the very limited ASCII, which can represent only a handful of languages, only three of which are used to any great extent: English, Indonesian and Swahili.
All the other languages, spoken by more than 90% of the world's population, must fall back on other character sets. And there is a plethora of them, created over the years to satisfy writing constraints and constantly changing technological limitations. The ISO international character set registry contains only a small fraction; IBM's character registry1 is over three centimeters thick; Microsoft and Apple each have a bunch of their own, as do other software manufacturers and editors.
The problem is not that there are too few but rather too many choices, at least whenever Internet standards allow them. And the surplus is a real problem; if every Arabic user made his own choice among the three dozen or so codes available for this language, there is little likelihood that his "neighbor" would do the same and that they would thus be able to understand each other. This example is rather extreme, but it does illustrate the importance of standards in the area of internationalization. For a group of users sharing the same language to be able to communicate,
Certain character sets stand out, either because of their status as an official national
or international standard, or simply because of their widespread use.
First off, there is the ISO 8859 standards series that standardize a dozen character sets that are useful for a large number of languages using the Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, Greek and Hebrew alphabets. These standards have a limited range of application (8 bits per character, a maximum of 190 characters, no combining) but where they suffice (as they do for 10 of the 20 most widely used languages), they should be used on the Internet in preference to other codes. For all other languages, national standards should preferably be chosen or, if none are available, a well-known and widely-used code should be the second choice.
Even when we limit ourselves to the most widely used standards, the overabundance remains considerable, and this significantly complicates life for truly international software developers and users of several languages, especially when such languages can only be represented by a single code. It was to resolve this problem that both Unicode and the ISO 10646 International standard were created. Two standards? Oh no! Their designers soon realized the problem and were able to cooperate to the extent of making the character set repertoires and coding identical.
ISO 10646 (and Unicode) contain over 30,000 characters capable of representing most of the living languages within a single code. All of these characters, except for the Han (Chinese characters also used in Japanese and Korean), have a name. And there is still room to encode the missing languages as soon as enough of the necessary research is done. Unicode can be used to represent several languages, using different alphabets, within the same electronic document, as we have done in our Multilingual bookmark list.
1 Character Data Representation Architecture Reference and Registry, SC09-2190, IBM Corporation. Contains 2 CD-ROMs.
|The Tango Multilingual Browser will properly display all of Babel's languages.||© 1996, Alis Technologies inc.|