From: Erkki Kolehmainen (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 24 2006 - 03:31:39 CDT
The introduction of the many available date/time formatting formats -
now that I finally believe to understand them - is actually a major step
forward. They should be explained a lot better for the next release,
CLDR 1.5, since the forthcoming CLDR 1.4 is essentially a done deal.
Regards, Erkki I. Kolehmainen
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>There seems to be some confusion around the term "alternate quotation
>>marks". Some people apparently think that the term refers to different
>>style of quotation marks, alternative quotations marks.
>>have to sets of quotation marks, one commonly used in books
>>commonly used in newspapers, office documents, etc.) The
>>is understandable, since the term is misleading.
>>It would be better to call them "inner quotation marks". This
>>match the idea of _alternating_ quotation marks, i.e. the
>>idea that you
>>have two pairs of quotation marks to be used alternatingly in nested
> I agree. In addition, some of the CLDR data seems to indicate that
> the current notions have also been misunderstood as "fallback quotation
> marks", since so many entries use the ASCII quotation marks.
> - quotation marks
> - inner quotation marks
> - alternate quotation marks
> - alternate inner quotation marks
> would be suitable to give data for. I don't think there's a need for
> fallback quotation marks, since that is an entirely different issue.
> /kent k
> If you want to trim the number of data items, how about removing some
> of the date/time formatting formats, which are in overabundance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 24 2006 - 03:33:55 CDT