From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 06:17:11 CST
From: "Hans Aberg" <email@example.com>
> On 18 Nov 2005, at 19:59, Mark Davis wrote:
>> You display little real knowledge of the CLDR project or the
>> relationship between the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646. Your
>> statement about ISO 15924 happens to be accurate (but a broken watch is
>> correct twice a day).
>> Please do not pretend to be an authority about these subjects.
> May we get to know your opinion of the correct the technical facts? An
> explanation of misunderstandings from those that really know, will help
> to keep up the technical standard of the list.
> Hans Aberg
Please Mark stop such arrogance. There was nothing wrong in my statement,
unless you are saying that the CLDR project (even if it is informal and has
no schedule or a formal administration) is not in the Unicode standard. You
are perpetuating the confusion between the Unicode standard and the
unrelated set of Unicode consortium projects.
In fact, I think that Unicode should only be kept for refering to the
standard with a name. Keeping the name for the Consortium just perpetuates
this confusion. I was clear enough in my sentence when I used EACH TIME the
term "standard" where appropriate.
You don't need to make such correction: the CLDR and LDML projects (as
described in the UTS technical note) is NOT part of the Unicode standard.
You can still implement your own incompatible non-conforming different
version of the CLDR or LDML database, and then distribute and still you can
still claim that your application is FULLY conforming to the Unicode
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 19 2005 - 06:19:15 CST