Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 18:31:10 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"

    From: "Peter Kirk" <>
    > On 25/04/2004 10:09, Ernest Cline wrote:
    > >...If the need for a separate list exists, it should soon make itself
    > >apparent.
    > I think this has already made itself apparent, from the 30 or so e-mails
    > on this topic which I have received in just one day, and not even a
    > working day for most of us. This is nothing to do with Unicode and so
    > should be on a separate list.

    Given that interoperable locale data will interest a lot of new peoples wanting
    to submit their data or discuss about bugs or omissions in the existing ones, or
    discussions about RFC 3066 successor, or locale resolution algorithms, and lots
    of impelmentation issues which are not related strictly to Unicode as they
    affect any legacy charset as well, I do vote for an urgent split.

    The subject of locales is even more complex and rich than Unicode alone, as
    existing softwares already use a lot of legacy locale conventions, and the set
    of locale properties to include will probably increase a lot in a near future,
    and may attract many related areas such as discussions about translation styles,
    glossaries for various economical or research domains, etc...

    My feeling is that for about 2 or 3 years, there will be even more discussions
    about inclusion of new locales in the CLDR than in the strict Unicode list
    itself. There are in fact much more people concerned by locales than by
    character encoding (most people do not even know or want to know about this
    technical aspect of String encoding, and want to be converened only by the
    semantic of their data)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 18:59:56 EDT