Re: apostrophes

From: Erkki Kolehmainen (
Date: Wed May 24 2006 - 03:31:39 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: apostrophes"

    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.
    >>(Several languages
    >>have to sets of quotation marks, one commonly used in books
    >>and another
    >>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
    >>would not
    >>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
    > specifying
    > fallback quotation marks, since that is an entirely different issue.
    > /kent k
    > PS
    > 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