4 Languages and Character Sets

4.1.1 Some definitions

The term character has several meanings which it is necessary to keep distinct for a proper understanding of the issues which arise in representing texts in digital form. At the risk of insulting the intelligence of the expert reader, we will attempt to disentangle some of those meanings here.⁴⁷

We use the term abstract character to refer to the atomic component of some writing system, independent of how it is realized in some written form, and also of how it is stored in some digital form. For example, we might use the letter A to stand for the same abstract character (capital letter roman A), whatever font is used to render it, and whatever pattern of bits is used to represent it in digital storage. A character is an inherently abstract notion: it corresponds with `the smallest unit that carries semantic value' within some writing system.

A given computer system will usually be configured to support a fixed number of abstract characters, which we call its character repertoire.

We use the term glyph to refer to the particular written form used for an abstract character when it is rendered on screen or paper, and the term font for a particular set of glyphs. The same character may be represented by many different glyphs; less obviously, the same glyph, may in certain circumstances correspond with different abstract characters, or be used with different interpretations, as when, for example, the Greek capital letter omega is also used to represent the unit of electrical resistance (ohm).

When dealing with historical material, it may be a matter of some debate as to whether some glyph should be regarded as a variant of the same abstract character or as a different character. For example, in early printed texts the lowercase roman letter S may appear in an elongated form. Should this be treated as a distinct abstract character (itself with variant glyphs) or simply as a variant glyph for the abstract character represented also by the non-elongated form? Some relevant questions to ask are:

• Does the elongated form of the s ever contrast with the non-elongated form in the same document with a different meaning? If so, it should be handled as a separate character.
• Could the two forms be interchanged without affecting the meaning of a document? If so, they should be regarded as variant glyphs.
• Does one of the forms appear in a predictable context (for example only in a particular position in a word)? If so, it might be a variant glyph, rather than a distinct character.

Because historical materials are often fragmentary and idiosyncratic in their appearance, the decision as to whether a sign is a character or variant may be a matter of debate. It is also a decision which changes over time: it might be argued, for example, that the letters U and V, which are now regarded as distinct, were at one time variant glyphs for the same abstract character in the Latin writing system. However such issues are handled, they should be carried through consistently and adequately documented.

We use the term coded character set (strictly) to mean the set of numeric values associated with a given character repertoire when it is represented in digital form. For example, in some character code, the abstract character A might be represented by the number 31, B by the number 32, and so on. Each of these mappings (from abstract character to number) is sometimes called a code point. A number of other phrases are sometimes used in place of `coded character set', including character code or character set, and the same phrase is also often used as a synonym for both font and repertoire, as we have defined them here. Our usage follows common practice within both ISO and W3C.⁴⁸

Note also that a given abstract character may be represented by more than one code point, or by a sequence of code points. For example, the single abstract character ä corresponds with code point 244 in the Universal Character Set, but also with the sequence of code points 31 and 104, which stand for the letter a and the diaresis symbol respectively.⁴⁹

Finally, we use the term encoded character to mean simply the numerical value associated with that abstract character in a given coded character set.⁵⁰

The character encoding (i.e. the representation used for its encoded characters) applicable to an XML document is stated in its encoding declaration (2.10.1 SGML and XML declarations) and is UTF8 or UTF16 by default. These Guidelines do not recommend usage of other character encodings for XML documents. The encoding applicable to an SGML document is defined (along with other matters) in the SGML declaration prefixed to it and is almost entirely arbitrary.

4.1.2 Characters and glyphs

Both the Unicode standard and ISO/IEC 10646 give fundamentally similar definitions for the terms character and glyph along the lines we have informally introduced above. The ISO definitions are as follows:

character

A member of a set of elements used for the organisation, control, or representation of data. (ISO/IEC 10646-1: 1993, 31)

glyph

A recognizable abstract graphic symbol which is independent of any specific design. (ISO/IEC 9541-1: 1991, 3.5)

Here are the Unicode definitions:

character

(1) The smallest component of written language that has semantic value; refers to the abstract meaning and/or shape, rather than a specific shape (see also glyph), though in code tables some form of visual representation is essential for the reader's understanding. (2) Synonym for abstract character. (See Definition D3 in Section 3.3, Characters and Coded Representations) (3) The basic unit of encoding for the Unicode character encoding. (4) The English name for the ideographic written elements of Chinese origin.

glyph

(1) An abstract form that represents one or more glyph images. (2) A synonym for glyph image. In displaying Unicode character data, one or more glyphs may be selected to depict a particular character. These glyphs are selected by a rendering engine during composition and layout processing. (See also character.)

glyph image

The actual, concrete image of a glyph representation having been rasterized or otherwise imaged onto some display surface.

Although representative glyphs do appear in Unicode character tables as an aid to the reader, it is important to note that these are not normative; the Unicode Standard defines characters, as defined above, and not glyphs.

These may be compared with the following related, partially overlapping definitions, used in the field of linguistic theory (See for example R. R. K. Hartmann and F.C. Stork: Dictionary of language and linguistics, Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London, 1976)

grapheme

A minimally distinctive unit of a particular writing system. The different variants, e.g., the cursive and printed shapes of letters M, m, cursivated m, M, etc. in an alphabetic writings system are all allographs of the grapheme /m/.

allograph

One of a group of variants of a grapheme or written sign in a particular writing system. It usually refers to different shapes of letters and punctuation marks, e.g., lower case, capital, cursive, printed, strokes.

While `glyph' and `allograph' seem almost synonymous, it should be noted that `grapheme' is defined with reference to a particular writing system, whereas an `abstract character' is defined independently of any specific writing system.

The distinction between characters and glyphs is crucial in preparing an encoded text. Users of such texts expect systems to recognize different glyphs as representing the same character when (for example) performing text retrieval or text searching; at the same time, they expect characters to be rendered using appropriate glyphs. When encoding a pre-existing text, the encoder must therefore determine whether a particular letter or symbol is a character or a glyphic variant of one. A coherent model of the relationship between characters and glyphs has been developed within the Unicode Consortium and the ISO working group SC2⁵¹ and will form the base for much future standards work.

The model makes explicit the distinction between two different properties of the components of written language:

• their content, i.e. its meaning and phonetic value (represented by a character)
• their graphical appearance (represented by a glyph)

When searching for information, a system generally operates on the content aspects of characters, usually with little attention paid to their appearance of characters. A layout or formatting procedure on the other hand, has little to do with the content, but needs to be concerned with the exact appearance of characters. Of course, many operations require attention to both kinds of feature (hyphenation for example), but in general the kind of text encoding described in these Guidelines tends to focus on content rather than appearance (see further 6.3 Highlighting and Quotation).

When the purpose of an encoding is to represent information about which glyphs were used in some instance of the document being treated, one might choose to do so at either or both of two levels:

• on the level of character encoding, e.g. with appropriate Unicode code points.
• on the markup level, with appropriate elements and/or attributes.

It should be noted that using `appropriate Unicode code points' to represent glyph information requires that such choices be documented in the TEI Header or WSD. Such documentation does not guarantee proper display of the desired glyph but at least makes the intention of the encoder discoverable.

At present, neither the Unicode Standard nor these Guidelines offer detailed specifications for the encoding of glyph variations. Some discussion of related matters is given in 18 Transcription of Primary Sources, and the writing system declaration (25 Writing System Declaration) offers some features for the definition of variant glyphs, but further work is needed in both these areas before detailed recommendations can be made.

4.1.3 Characters and their encoding

Over the years, many different ways of encoding abstract characters have been proposed by national standard bodies and vendors of information processing systems, often derived from the sometimes limited character repertoires available on specific kinds of hardware.⁵²

Because of this variety, at the time these Guidelines were first published (1994) no single character set could plausibly be recommended for use in TEI-encoded documents. It was felt at that time that users would have to use whatever character sets were available to them, subject to the character set restrictions imposed by the SGML declaration. For texts subject to `blind' interchange (that is, interchange between parties who do not or cannot make explicit agreements over the character set to be used in interchange), users would have to rely on a small subset of the available character repertoires which could be reliably transported across networks.⁵³ At that time, also, the character encoding used by an SGML document could be redefined by the SGML declaration: this was necessary, since it would otherwise have been impossible to interchange SGML documents using different encodings.

With the advent of XML, and the definition of Unicode, the job of those wishing to encode arbitrary character repertoires becomes very much simpler. The Unicode standard⁵⁴ defines the Universal Character Set. Its primary goal is to provide an unambiguous encoding for the content of plain text, ultimately covering all languages. Currently in its third major version, Unicode provides coverage for most of the world's writing systems. It also contains additional characters for interoperability with older character encodings, and characters with control-like functions included primarily for reasons of providing unambiguous interpretation of plain text. Unicode provides specifications for use of all of these characters.

Users of these Guidelines are strongly recommended to make themselves familiar with the general principles of Unicode, as spelled out in The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Chapter 2. Additionally, there is an excellent document co-published by the World Wide Web Consortium and the Unicode Consortium, Unicode in XML and other Markup Languages.⁵⁵ which gives some general considerations, and specific usage suggestions.

We have stated several times above (2.7.3 Character references) that all XML documents use the same character encoding: this is the Universal Character Set defined by ISO/IEC 10646, which is effectively the same as the character encoding defined by the Unicode consortium.⁵⁶ Strictly speaking, these are both character encodings and character repertoires, since each of them defines both a set of abstract characters and the code points corresponding with them.

It should be stressed again that Unicode represents `abstract characters' independent of specific glyph forms: the glyph examples given in Unicode code charts are not normative, being chosen simply to indicate which character is intended. There is no guarantee that a given character encoded with a given Unicode codepoint will be rendered in a similar way on different computer systems, because information about which glyph from which glyph collection is to be used is simply not encoded, and is therefore not available for any rendering process.

Although it may be tempting to specify a glyph guided by its particular appearance in a font, users should be aware that font repertoires may vary; what one system displays may not necessarily appear the same to someone using a different font. Hence, just relying on character encoding and the font may not be sufficient and a comment in the WSD or TEI header should be included, specifying the exact nature of the intended glyph.

The code space for Unicode characters allows for around one million characters. These characters are organized as 17 `planes', each of which holds up to 65 536 codepoints. Only the first of these planes, the `Basic Multilingual Plane' (BMP) can be addressed (or represented) using a single 16 bit integer; for all other planes two 16 bit integers are required. Unicode 3.1 has assigned codepoints beyond the BMP for the first time, but most characters can be addressed using just the BMP.

4.1.4 Character semantics

In addition to the Universal Character Set itself, the Unicode Consortium maintains a database of additional character semantics. This includes names for each character codepoint and normative properties for it. This database is an important reference in determining which Unicode codepoint to use to encode a certain character. In addition to the printed documentation and lists made available by the Unicode consortium, it may also be accessed by a number of search systems over the web (e.g. http://www.eki.ee/letter/). Examples of character properties included in the database include case, numeric value, directionality, and its status as a `compatibility character'.⁵⁷

The existence of compatability and composed characters means that, with the best will in the world, there will still remain a number of characters that have more than one encoding in Unicode. In addition to characters composed from a base character and some diacritical marks, Unicode also contains quite a number of `precomposed characters'. Most of these were already encoded in earlier standards that served as sources for Unicode; in principle, no further precomposed characters are to be added. A sequence of a base character and one or more diacritical marks is supposed to be equivalent to the corresponding precomposed character; yet both are present. In the same way, different allographic forms of the same underlying ideograph may sometimes be regarded as distinct Unicode characters.

It is important to treat such variation in a consistent and normalized way. Where, for a particular project, these multiple character representations are regarded as equivalent, data integrity requires that the project standardize on one form and document its decision. The Unicode Consortium provides four standard normalization forms, ⁵⁸ of which the Normalization Form C (NFC) seems to be most appropriate for text encoding projects. The World Wide Web Consortium has produced a document entitled Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0, ⁵⁹ which among other things outlines some principles of normalization. In general, normalization to the shortest possible Unicode encoding is recommended.

4.1.5 Characters from the Private Usage Area

Although Unicode has already assigned more than 94 000 characters to unique codepoints, there is always the possibility that characters needed are not defined in Unicode. Some of these may be presentation forms or alternate writing styles of East Asian characters that do not qualify to be included in Unicode. For such characters, Unicode provides a `Private Usage Area', which is reserved for use by vendors, private groups, and individuals. There are 6400 codepoints in this area in the BMP and 131 068 in other planes.

By definition, the codepoints in this range are of use only internally. Their use in TEI documents intended for interchange is therefore strongly discouraged. Where encoders need to interchange non-Unicode characters, they should do so by other mechanisms, for example by named character entity references, supported by appropriate documentation, for example in a WSD.

For local processing, on the other hand, use of characters from this area might prove convenient, since, if the corresponding font resources are available, users can see the characters more easily on their screens and analytical software might not be able to process entity references in the same way as characters. In any case, before preparing a TEI document for interchange, all occurrences of characters from the Private Usage Area should be removed.

As a concrete example, supposing that we wished to render the elongated s (or any other glyph variant) in a distinct way in our local processing environment, we might conveniently assign some codepoint from the PUA for this purpose (say, U+E000). This would then make it possible to create a font that displays the desired character at this codepoint. However, since this assignment would only be valid on the local site, any texts containing such codepoints would not be suitable for interchange until they have been re-encoded, for example by substituting a character entity reference (such as &long-s;) for each occurrence of U+E000. When received at some other site, the character entity reference could again be resolved to a code point from the PUA. If (as is possible) the receiving site has already assigned some other use for the codepoint U+E000, it can simply choose some other hitherto unused codepoint (say, U+E080) to represent the same variant glyph. (On character entity references, see 4.2.1 Character input and entity references below).

4.2.1 Character input and entity references

Data characters can be included in an XML document directly, by typing them in from a keyboard, or indirectly by representing them by means of entity references. When characters are typed in directly, the software used can be configured in a variety of ways to simplify the task of entering characters not immediately visible on the keyboard (for example, by using special keyboard shortcuts, escape sequences, onscreen virtual keyboards, etc.); these are not described in any detail here, as they are so environment-dependent. For example, if the character Ä is not directly available from the keyboard, and if one is using a machine running Windows, one might enter it by holding down the ALT key and typing the digits 0196 on the numeric keyboard. Alternatively, on a system such as Gnu Emacs, one might define a sequence of keystrokes such as A" to have the same effect.

When characters are represented using entity references (described in more detail in section 2.7 Entities), the reference may be given as a numeric entity reference, using either decimal or hexadecimal notation, or it may be given as a standardized name. For example, the character Ä might be represented by any of the three following entity references &#196; &#x00C4; &Auml;. The first two represent the character required by means of its code point value (196 in decimal, C4 in hexadecimal) in the Unicode character code: they are thus entirely self-sufficient, and can be processed directly by any Unicode-aware system; they are not however as attractive for human beings, who generally find names more memorable than numbers. In the third case above, the name Auml is taken from a widely-used entity set called ISO Latin 1. An entity set is simply a list of entity declarations in which parts of some character repertoire are defined as entities with memorable names or mnemonics, with values taken from an appropriate character encoding. For example, the XML version of the iso-lat1 entity set includes the following declaration <!ENTITY Auml "&#x00C4;">. ⁶⁰

If entering the following text,

Trotz dieser langen Tradition sekundäranalytischer Ansätze wird man die Bilanz tatsächlich durchgeführter sekundäranalytischer Arbeiten aber in wesentlichen Punkten als unbefriedigend empfinden müssen.

in a system which does not allow for direct representation of a-umlaut or u-umlaut, one could transcribe this sentence thus:

Trotz dieser langen Tradition sekundäranalytischer
 Ansätze wird man die Bilanz tatsächlich
 durchgeführter sekundäranalytischer Arbeiten
 aber in wesentlichen Punkten als unbefriedigend
 empfinden müssen.

Before an entity can be referred to, it must be declared. Standard public entity names can be declared en masse, by including within the DTD subset of the document a reference to the standard public entity which declares them. The German document quoted above, for example, might have the following lines, or their equivalent, in its DTD subset:

<!ENTITY % ISOLat1 
        PUBLIC "ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN"
        "http://www.tei-c.org/XML_Entities/iso-lat1.ent">
 %ISOLat1;

Such mechanisms are obviously unnecessary for the treatment of characters such as a-umlaut or u-umlaut which are readily available in Unicode. However, they may also be used for the representation of other characters which are not yet standardized but which an encoder wishes to distinguish. Such characters can be represented within a document by any arbitrary entity name, which the encoder can then associate with different expansions depending on the software system or application involved.

For example, in transcribing a manuscript, it might be desirable to distinguish among three distinct forms of the letter ‘r'. In the transcript, each of these forms will be encoded by an entity reference, for example: &r1;, &r2;, and &r3;. Entity declarations must then be provided within the DTD subset of the document to define these entities and specify a substitute string.

One possible set of declarations would be as follows:

<!ENTITY r  'r[1]'>
<!-- most common form of 'r'  -->
 <!ENTITY r2 'r[2]'>
<!-- secondary form of 'r'    -->
 <!ENTITY r3 'r[3]'>
<!-- third form of 'r'        -->

The expansions shown above will simply flag each occurrence with a number in brackets to indicate which form of ‘r' appears in the manuscript.

More realistically, we may be able to associate each of the variant forms found with some predefined Unicode character. For example, assuming that r1 represents an r with a dot above it, r2 represents an r with a tail, and r3 represents an r with a fish-hook, we could simply use the appropriate Unicode values as follows:

<!ENTITY r1  '&#x1e59;'>    <!-- r with dot above  -->
 <!ENTITY r2 '&#x027d;'>     <!-- r with tail       -->
 <!ENTITY r3 '&#x027e;'>     <!-- r with fish-hook  -->

Obviously, this will only have the desired effect if a font containing the required glyphs is available when the document is rendered. If rendering the glyphs requires some special processing action, it may be preferable to use a processing instruction (2.9.1 Processing instructions) as the replacement value for the entity, as in the following example:

<!ENTITY r2  '<?tex \specialR?>'>
     <!-- when processing with TeX, use the \specialR command -->

If, on the other hand, the three kinds of r are being distinguished for some other kind of reason, perhaps to count their relative frequencies, with no particular concern as to how they are rendered, it might be preferable to convey the distinction by tagging them explicitly. In such a case, the replacement text for the three entities might look like the following:

<!ENTITY r  '<c type="1">r</c>'>
<!-- most common form of 'r'  -->
 <!ENTITY r2 '<c type="2">r</c>'>
<!-- secondary form of 'r'    -->
 <!ENTITY r3 '<c type="3">r</c>'>
<!-- third form of 'r'        -->

Finally, if the intention is for all three forms to be treated alike, we might supply declarations like the following:

<!ENTITY r  'r'>
<!-- most common form of 'r'  -->
 <!ENTITY r2 'r'>
<!-- secondary form of 'r'    -->
 <!ENTITY r3 'r'>
<!-- third form of 'r'        -->

When locally defined entities are used for the representation of characters in the text, for example to record presentational variants as in this example, a writing system declaration (25 Writing System Declaration) should be used to document their meaning.

4.2.2 Transliteration schemes

For lengthy transcriptions in scripts not supported by the document character set, entity references may prove unwieldy. In such cases, it is also possible to transliterate the material. In a transliteration scheme, glyphs properly associated with one abstract character are systematically redefined with another: for example, a glyph which `looks like' an A (but is not in fact an A) might be transliterated as one. To avoid information loss, a reversible transliteration scheme (i.e. one in which it is possible to reconstruct the original writing from the transliteration) should be preferred. ⁶¹

For example, using the Beta code transcription developed for ancient Greek by the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ,⁶² one would transcribe the start of the Iliad of Homer thus:

<l>*MH=NIN A)/EIDE QEA\ *PHLHI+A/DEW *)AXILH=OS
 OU)LOME/NHN, H(\ MURI/' *)AXAIOI=S A)/LGE' E)/QHKE,</l>

In an XML context, there is no particular reason to use a transliteration scheme, other than convenience of text preparation or the handling of legacy systems. If used, the transliteration scheme should be documented using a Writing System Declaration (25 Writing System Declaration). However, texts encoded using transliteration schemes are inherently non-standard, and the use of such schemes is thus deprecated except where circumstances permit no alternative.