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

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:56:52 EDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: SSP default ignorable characters, was: Variation selectors and vowel marks"

    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, based on Mark's message to
    Unicore on 2004-04-22:

    > 4. There is a mailing list set up, 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
    FTP site).

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 20:37:43 EDT