Re: Exemplar Characters

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 12:48:01 CST

  • Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Glottal Fantasy (was: Apostrophes)"

    First, I want to apologize for the tone of my message, it was overly
    strong and pointed: especially the watch comment. However, as far as the
    facts go, I stand by them.

    The Unicode Standard is for the encoding of characters. It is one (a
    very important one!) of the many software globalization standards being
    worked on by the Unicode Consortium.

    There is no intention for CLDR (a project) or LDML (a standard) to ever
    be part of the Unicode Standard, nor did I ever state that. For each of
    the separate standards supported by the consortium, it is stated in
    *black and white* in the Status section that "A Unicode Technical
    Standard (UTS) is an independent specification. Conformance to the
    Unicode Standard does not imply conformance to any UTS.". I have no
    idea where you picked up the contrary notion.

    Jukka also had a nice response on the issue.

    CLDR is not "informal". The project and operation is described on The procedures are the joint procedures
    for the Unicode Consortium technical committees, found on

    Normally I let a lot of misstatements on this list slide. There are so, 
    so many statements like the following:
     >I fully disagree with you about the curly right apostrophe. It is not 
    part of the pattern-syntax...
    that are obviously false, when one looks at the actual data:, search for 
    Pattern_Syntax then 2019.
    and looks at the documentation for that property:
    or bothers to look at the stability policies:
    Or googled the FAQs: Pattern Syntax
    (A great many issues on this list would be answered if people searched 
    the FAQs more often; if they disagree with what is written there or want 
    more information, they always have the opportunity to suggest changes.)
     > it remains that only ISO decides and Unicode executes
    Also false (as is the entire rest of the following paragraph). For 10646 
    and Unicode, neither of the responsible organizations simply 
    rubber-stamps the other's work; that is a complete misrepresentation of 
    the actual relationship.
     > And In fact I doubt that LDML will be used in applications for 
    something else than the management of the common CLDR database itself.
    Also incorrect: just yahoo
      Windows LDML
    (Although in this case, I have no object to the phrasing of the 
    statement, since it is expressing personal doubt as to the acceptance, 
    not making pronouncements about the status of standards or organizations.)
    If each and every every one of such statements were corrected, it would 
    divert from actually productive efforts (notwithstanding my admiration 
    for Ken's and other's diligence in doing that).
    Philippe Verdy wrote:
    > From: "Hans Aberg" <>
    >> 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 standard.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 19 2005 - 12:49:26 CST