 |
 |
i, On Monday, 22 February 2016, Chris Moschini <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2016 9:33 PM, "Stuart A. Yeates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> 1) With Unicode 8, sign writing and ASL, the American / international >> dichotomy is largely specious. Before that there were American indigenous >> languages (Cheyenne etc.), but in my experience Americans don't usually >> think of them them as American. > > It's not about the label, so don't get too hung up on that. It's about > what's easy to type on a typical US keyboard. > If you are accessing a non-English resource, then having characters outside the basic latin block would seem to be perfectly acceptable to me. There are two types of users involved .. those that xan read the target language and those that can't. Those you can should be able to work with keyboards other than a US English layout. On most devices this is fairly trivial. Not to mention the user may jot actuually have the US English keyboard layout as their default input system. On a multilingual site I prefer the access points to be in the language of the resource. Obviously there are cases where people who can not read the language need to access a resource. In those cases I would look at apis that expose the resource in a different way. Maybe through a transliteration mapping. Rather than having a second URL. Ultimately it comes fown to who the users are and why they are accessing the resource. It seems to me your primary concern is for users who can not read the resource in any event Andrew -- Andrew Cunningham [log in to unmask]