Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Wed Dec 07 2005 - 12:40:52 CST

  • Next message: Tony Jollans: "RE: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?"

    On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 08:46 -0800 2005-12-07, Mark Davis wrote:
    >> CLDR is not in the business of trying to make policy; it is aimed at
    >> reflecting current customary practice for the language/locale in question.
    > In the absence of uniform customary practice, it has to make a decision, and
    > as indicated, that will tend to influence customary practice in any case.

    That's certainly true for _some_ data, such as the localized names of
    "exotic" languages, and the decisions should be made with awareness of the
    implied responsibility. But for date notations, customary practices
    often exist. They might not be uniform in the sense of being applied
    _everywhere_, but there's seldom a reason to deviate from what more than
    50 % uses or finds natural.

    Jukka "Yucca" Korpela,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 07 2005 - 12:42:39 CST