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

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 18:57:57 EDT

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

    At 15:36 -0700 2004-04-25, Mark Davis wrote:
    >There seems to be some misapprehension here. The
    >list is for anyone to say anything vaguely related to unicode, for
    >which cldr qualifies as much as collation, keyboards, and beer
    >measurements, all of which have been discussed there by various

    Some of us think differently. You might want to listen to our opinions.

    >We do not restrict the content of the list.

    I do not want to invite locale discussions into the fracas, as you have done.

    >And the signal to noise ratio is very low; just take a moment to
    >look yourself at the topics discussed. I have no desire to have yet
    >another list with the same characteristics.

    Please listen to your constituents, Mr President. We know better than
    you do. General discussion of locales should not occur on the Unicode
    list. It introduces a whole spectrum of new elements which I do not
    want in my Unicode in-box. You can expect regular complaints on this
    issue if

    >Any serious discussion of practical issues relating to the development of CLDR
    >will be taking place on, which IS a separate list.

    I understand that cldr@ is on the same level as unicore@. Very well
    and good. On Unicore, locale matters will be considered off-topic, no?

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:26:22 EDT