From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:56:52 EDT
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> No. No, Ernest. Locales do NOT have to do with the Unicode character
> set or with the processing of its characters, which is what this list
> is for. Locales is a whole huge other world, independent of character
> set, and needs to be on a separate list.
I tend to agree with Michael that general discussion about locales, if
any, belongs on a separate list and not on the main Unicode list.
That's why I signed up for email@example.com, based on Mark's message to
Unicore on 2004-04-22:
> 4. There is a mailing list set up, firstname.lastname@example.org for members.
> If you would like to be on that list, see http://...
I didn't read the part about "for members" too carefully. If the cldr@
list turns out to be only for committee business and not for general
discussion about locales, then a separate public list is probably in
That said, I agree strongly with Ernest that at least so far, we have
not seen the great feared flooding of the Unicode list with discussions
about locales. We've seen a LOT of posts about the newly launched
project and about the list itself, but as Ernest said, these are
meta-discussions and should die down quickly after the initial hubbub.
It is quite misleading to claim that locale discussion has generated "30
or so e-mails in one day"; I haven't seen a single comment about locales
per se in any of those messages (except for my question about the Olson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 20:37:43 EDT