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

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 18:45:46 EDT

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

    There seems to be some misapprehension here. The
    unicode@unicode.org 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 people. We do not restrict the content of the list.
    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.

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

    Mark
    __________________________________
    http://www.macchiato.com
    ? 'Վ˼˻ ?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
    To: <unicode@unicode.org>
    Sent: Sun, 2004 Apr 25 12:04
    Subject: Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?

    > At 11:35 -0700 2004-04-25, Mark Davis wrote:
    > >This is a public, general purpose list.
    >
    > Decidated to the discussion of the Unicode Standard and its implementation.
    >
    > >There are already many discussions of topics unrelated to the
    > >Unicode standard per se; just look back over your messages sorted by
    > >subject, and you'll see *many* of them.
    >
    > That is a very different thing, Mark, from announcing that everything
    > goes as far as discussion of the entire area of locales is concerned.
    > That is orthogonal to the discussion of the Unicode Standard and its
    > implementation.
    >
    > >As I said, if this really proves to be a problem, we can split the lists.
    >
    > The very fact that month names and language codes and other
    > locale-related are now fare game makes it a problem a priori for me.
    > It is hard enough, Mark, to track all the mail I get. Now the Unicode
    > list is going to be dedicated to a completely different topic as
    > well? Bad idea.
    >
    > I want to discuss locales, but I don't want that discussion to be
    > threaded along with the work on character encoding and
    > implementation. I have recently published a proposal document for the
    > HRYVNIA SIGN and the CEDI SIGN. That proposal derived from discussion
    > occurring on the Unicode list, quite properly. Even that discussion
    > was threaded along with (lots of) other stuff. Why add new areas for
    > discussion?
    >
    > Please exercise some common sense. Mixing locales along with Unicode
    > discussion is going to cause trouble. Please start a new list for
    > that discussion. It is no different from having lists dedicated to
    > specialized discussion of Tibetan or Hebrew or BiDi.
    >
    > Please, Mark. You don't spend as much time on the Unicode list as I
    > do. Trust me.
    >
    > Or trust MichKa.
    >
    > Either way, please make a new list for this specialized discussion area.
    > --
    > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:28:19 EDT