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

From: Curtis Clark (jcclark-lists@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 07 2005 - 20:58:52 CST

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Initial upper case LL digraph in spanish"

    On 2005-12-07 08:46, 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.

    Agreed, but when the customary practice is ambivalent and in the midst
    of change, and especially (as was noted) because the US locale is widely
    installed and not widely modified, there is no way that CLDR can be
    truly neutral. Whichever is picked will almost certainly shift the balance. 

    -- 
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 07 2005 - 21:01:23 CST