From: Erkki Kolehmainen (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 24 2006 - 01:47:28 CDT
It would appear that in the past some mechanical transformation has been
performed under somewhat erroneous assumptions. Incidentally, using CLDR
1.3 tables - when one could see with the Survey Tool what has been
proposed and possible already accepted for a given locale in CLDR 1.4 -
doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
>> The data in CLDR is accurate only to the extent that people participate.
> Yes, of course, but the question remains open why the data on quotation
> marks is _so_ wrong. Specifically, why are normal and alternate
> quotation marks reversed in most locales? I cannot believe that people
> who provided the local data got things so consistently wrong. This issue
> has been mentioned before, but I haven't seen any answer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 24 2006 - 01:50:04 CDT