From: Markus Scherer (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 11:00:37 CST
CLDR additionally has auxiliary exemplar characters. The two levels of
exemplar characters won't handle every case, of course (nothing ever
does), but should handle common cases.
On 10/17/05, Jukka K. Korpela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I'm afraid such restrictions, and variation in them, is rather common,
> even in countries where people use an essentially richer character
> repertoire in everyday E-mail, text processing, etc. What's worse,
> the restrictions are often undocumented or poorly documented, and
> what happens when data exceeds the limitations might be unpredictable.
> I don't know what could be done with this in general, but the
> "exemplar characters" definitions in CLDR come into my mind.
> They are currently limited to letters, unfortunately, and they
> are meant to describe the use of letters in a language, rather
> than the common practice of character repertoire in a country or
> other territory.
> It would be nice if we had a definition of "commonly available characters"
> for each country, describing the _typical_ repertoire. ...
-- Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless otherwise noted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 11:02:40 CST