Talk:ISO 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright violation here[edit]

ISO 9 is copyrighted. Reproducing fully its main table is highly probably a violation of that copyright according to international treaties. So, if there is no good argument against me, I'll only leave the Russian letters part of the table and delete the other lines. --Henri de Solages (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have this discussed in a plenary session, as this is an issue that could potentially affect each and every article on ISO standards (with some exceptions). -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is copyrighted, but we did not copy it. The tables here are merely paraphrasing what the standard says – which is, by the way, not all that much considering its standard ISO price tag – and they amend further information, such as Unicode positions, which ISO does not cover (despite ISO/IEC 10646).
What would the reasoning for limiting it to Russian letters be? I cannot come up with a sane one. — Christoph Päper 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic in Wikipedia[edit]

Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at

  1. Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
  2. Discussing potential revision of current practices

—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:45 Z

Church Slavonic[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for ISO 9:1995 for Church Slavonic, or know if it's supported? I've added ISO 9 to the table at scientific transliteration, but the following letters are missing: Ѡ ѡ, Ѧ ѧ, Ѩ ѩ, Ѭ ѭ, Ѯ ѯ, Ѱ ѱ, Ѳ ѳ, Ѵ ѵ, Ѥ ѥ. —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 22:00 Z

Church Slavonic is not supported, i.e. there are no transliterations for the letters exclusive to (Old) Church Slavonic. This may also apply to other historic languages and orthographies. — Christoph Päper 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
…
Ѧ ѧ ę ja …
…

Is ja for Church Slavonic ѧ really correct?

That is according to the IDS reference linked from the article. The table column is labelled "Altrussisch / Russ. Kirchenslavisch", so I guess it's specifically "Old Russian/Russian Church Slavonic". —Michael Z. 2006-03-06 22:51 Z

National Adoptions[edit]

I assume the mentioned national adoptions of ISO 9 as GOST 7.79 are really adoptions of ISO/R 9:1968 not of any more recent version of ISO 9 (without the slash)? This should be clarified. I guess it can’t be ISO 9:1995, simply because GOST was the Soviet standardisation body.

Not quite so. Generally, GOST may refer to USSR or Russian or "inter-state" (roughly meaning CIS) standard nomenclature. Some of the USSR standards have been retained, re-approved and even extended under several designations, both "old" and "new", notably so, block concerned with bibliographical information (GOST group 7). Also, each GOST designation contains the mandatory part denoting the year of introduction (like -83 or -2001). I can't check right now the 7.79 mentioned here. Yury Tarasievich 08:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GOST 7.79 is NOT a Soviet standard as it has been adopted only a few years ago. In its preface, there is a reference to ISO 9:1995. Here's what I've found so far: the text of GOST 7.79 (in Russian). Not sure if the source is reliable, however... 75.3.55.130 03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bolches yarboclos atte PAOK
That's what I said -- GOST per se may refer to production of quite different standard bodies. GOST 7.79-2000 is literal translation ("authentic text") of the ISO 9:1995, obsoleting GOST 16876-71 ("Soviet"), which was ISO 9-1968, I guess. And it refers to GOST 7.28-80, GOST 7.29-80, GOST 27465-87 (all "Soviet").
One of authoritative sources on this series is http://gsnti-norms.ru/ (all in Russian, for the list of series 7 presented there try http://gsnti-norms.ru/norms/norms/search.htm). Yury Tarasievich 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at transliteration tables, good indicators to distinguish all these romanization standards are for example ye (Є), kha (Х), shcha (Щ) and the barred o (Ө), by the way. Christoph Päper 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I don't see any discussion of the proposed merge here, so let me start it. I'm against it, as the standard stands alone as a topic, and should be described seperately from any related topic. --Mikeblas 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Scientific transliteration#Merge. Christoph Päper 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor revisions[edit]

What are the exact differences between ISO/R 9:1954 and :1968 and between ISO 9:1986 and :1995? Was “ISO 9:1986” just a new name for “ISO/R 9:1954”? 84.134.22.242 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/R 9 - 1968[edit]

ISO/R 9 - 1968 does not not mention Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic and Rusyn. For this reason I removed the information about these languagues from the table. --MaEr (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ҧ[edit]

Ҧ is listed twice, with different transliterations. This is probably a mistake and should be corrected. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was corrected, made incorrect, and corrected again. See GOST 7.79-2000, p.9. —Coroboy (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A direct url of the ref. is preferred....[edit]

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=3589 --222.64.23.186 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Coroboy (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ӎ and Ԙ[edit]

Where are these letters in the table? --RokerHRO (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These letters are not listed in the standard. See GOST 7.79-2000. —Coroboy (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ӽ[edit]

Where is this letter in the table? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This letter is not listed in the standard. See GOST 7.79-2000. —Coroboy (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode codes?[edit]

It would be helpful to have the Unicode numbers of the characters in the left-hand column, or at least to label the "Unicode" column "Unicode Replacements." It took me 15 minutes to realize that's what they represent. Really having the Cyrllic character codes (in the U+0400's) would make this table infinitely more useful.

Take the character Ж Zhe for example. It's Unicode Majuscule is U+0416, Minuscule: U+0436. In this article they are listed as 17D and 17E which are the replacements, not the originals. This is useful only if you are using a Unicode font does not support the Cyrillic character, but does support the replacement. Is that common?

Otherwise, if you are using Unicode, why not use the original character? I'm interested in this article because I'm translating to Windows-1252 (commonly confused with ISO-8859-1) where this character maps to Z-caron at 0x8E (decimal 142). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comma below, Cedilla or Ogonek[edit]

ISO 9:1995 uses ISO 5426 5/2 “hook to left” which is mapped to Unicode “comma below” U+0326 (Unicode “cedilla” U+0327 is ISO 5426 5/0), and ISO 5426 5/3 “hook to right” which is mapped to ogonek U+0328. ISO 5426

User:Moyogo recently added this ref and changed the Unicodes accordingly. It’s been a while since I actually read ISO 9 and I currently have no immediate access to a copy, but I don’t remember the characters normatively referring to any character code standard, such as ISO 5426 (which I never read). Please note that there is no date of registration in the PDF at evertype.com, so I don’t know whether it precedes ISO 9:1995.

The introduction of T and S with comma below is widely regarded as a mistake on behalf of ISO (not the Unicode Consortium), because the comma below is really just a glyph variant of the ogonek (which in turn, in my humble opinion, is just a vowel/East glyph variant of the consonant/West cedilla), which was nevertheless consciously made to please the Romanian board members. Furthermore, the respective characters with ogonek or cedilla are mostly available precomposed, whereas their comma counterparts require a combining diacritic. These are indications that the comma below is not used and probably was not intended to, so this should be reflected in the article. — Christoph Päper 10:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the comma below, not ogonek, is or was considered as a glyph variant of the cedilla. This wasn't the case here. ISO 5426:1982 can be read at http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/ISO-IR/053.pdf (if unaccessible try [1]). ISO 5426:1982 has the relevant characters 5/0 cedilla, 5/2 hook to left, and 5/3 ogonek (hook to right). So it clearly differentiates between cedilla and hook to left. The informative Annex A of ISO9:1995 refers to ISO 5426, where the comma below seen in the standard's transliteration tables is mapped to ISO 5426 5/2 hook to left. The ISO 5426 characters were later mapped to ISO 10646 (Unicode) characters in http://evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/iso-5426.pdf
It wasn't until the ISO 8859 of 1998 that the cedilla and comma below were considered to be the variants of the same glyph, which was then reverted for t and s for Romanian.
ISO 5426:1982 made the difference, ISO 9:1995 referred the comma below of ISO 5426, ISO 10646-1:1993 allowed the difference with U+0326, ISO 8859-X:1998 didn't make the difference (but didn't have complete coverage anyway), ISO 8859-16:2000 made the difference for Romanian (but didn't have complete coverage anyway) as well as 10646-1:2000.
The fact that there are precomposed characters with cedilla does not mean that they are correct. The use of combining diacritics is valid, you assertion their use indicates anything is erroneous. The ISO 9 already uses combining diacritics extensively.
The informative mappings to ISO 5426 (and indirectly to Unicode) does indicate that what is displayed under those characters was understood to not be 5/2 cedilla but 5/0 hook to left (Unicode’s comma below). --Moyogo/ (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note de:Kyrillisches Alphabet#Wiedergabe mit lateinischen Buchstaben has been using the comma below character since august 2010. --Moyogo/ (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, considering the section referencing 0x52 from ISO 5426 is informative and not normative, we could give both transliterations those based on the ISO 5426 mapping and those based on the interpretation that the hook to the left is still a cedilla. So for example Ҷ/ҷ would have both C̦/c̦ (with comma below according to ISO 5426 and its mapping to Unicode) and Ç/ç (with cedilla following frequent usage) as possible transliterations and a note would explain why each can be or is used in practice as ISO 9 doesn't actually specify characters in a normative way but only what they should look like. ---Moyogo/ (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s the best solution. — Christoph Päper 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Л’ glyph (ISO 9:1995, GOST 7.79 System A) be removed?[edit]

In the conversion table, please search for the row containing 0139 and 013A.

1. Same glyph -- Л’ (not to be confused with Л) -- is being used for both upper and lower cases. Is this intentional?

2. I went through 60-something tables (which I got from transliteration.eki.ee) for various Cyrillic-based languages, but none of them appeared to contain the Л’ glyph.

3. I've looked at the non-English versions of this page. Only 4 (en, esperanto, ja, and chinese) have Л’ in them.

So, does the Л’ really belong into that table? Am I missing something? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrokeOfMidnight (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to read Ԉ ԉ, but I’m pretty sure that’s not found in the (current) standard either. — Christoph Päper 09:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accents in the GOST 7.79 System B table[edit]

The accents are after the letters, not above the letters. Is that what the GOST standard demands? or is it a typography error made by the creator of that wiki table? --62.224.160.232 (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accent but an independent symbol called in the standard "the weak stress", that may be interpreted as the grave accent (ASCII 0x60). The whole point of the system B is not to use any accented letters but the standard Latin alphabet plus a modifying symbol.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism 2019-02-12[edit]

This article has been vandalized by User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA [2]. The user

  • removed Sweden, Romania, Lithuania, Italy, Estonia
  • removed date information for GCC/GSO
  • inserted a table from another standard (GOST)
  • ...

77.191.1.18 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian apostrophe[edit]

Can anyone confirm, what is the right transliteration of Ukrainian apostrophe?

German, Hungarian, Polish and Czech wikis all use 2019 ; Ukrainian and Russian wikis - 02BC, Spanish one - ` (0060).
Among on-line transliterators translitteration.com uses 2019, while ushuaia.pl uses 0060.

91.238.85.132 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike, for instance, German DIN 1460, ISO 9 unfortunately hasn't been updated yet to explicitly name the expected Unicode (= ISO 10646) codepoints for characters, so there probably is no reliable answer.
In general though, U+2019 is the proper character for the apostrophe as a punctuation mark, while U+02BC is the proper character for it as a letter. — Christoph Päper 14:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ISO_9&oldid=1203014624"