Re: are Unicode codes somehow specified in official national linguistic literature ? (worldwide)

From: Erkki Kolehmainen (erkki.kolehmainen@kotus.fi)
Date: Mon Jun 05 2006 - 06:27:07 CDT

  • Next message: Theodore H. Smith: "Re: UTF-8 can be used for more than it is given credit"

    I've inserted some comments in the text.

    Erkki I. Kolehmainen

    Cristian Secară wrote:

    > On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:32:31 +0800, Donald Z. Osborn wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What is the status of the locale data for Romanian in Romainia?
    >>Ideally this should reflect the orthographic and typographic
    >>rules/conventions for the language.
    >>
    >
    > As far as I know there is no official repository for that kind of
    > thing. Everyone assumes that everything is "known".
    > At the end of 2005 and begining of 2006 I had a modest attempt
    > to get out of sleep an old project for collecting data for a presumable
    > registration of cultural elements at
    > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg20/
    > but I get stuck because of some administrative requirements from
    > the ISO/IEC 15897 standard.

    I don't think that any work should be wasted on this severely outdated
    project. The one that counts is CLDR.

    > As for CLDR, I don't understand much there. It is true I missed this
    > list for some time and I only learned about the CLDR project about two
    > weeks ago.
    > My main question is what language it deserves ? Main Romanian, or all
    > languages spoken over Romanian territory ? (minorities) Because I found
    > references for characters that do not belong to Romanian language (like
    > characters Ä?, Å»). On the other hand, if the minorities languages *are*
    > counted in, then the list is not complete, assuming I looked at the
    > proper one.

    The structure of the CLDR does not limit the languages; the structure is
    language_REGION.

     
    > Other than that, the quotation data is completely wrong (I think I
    > already mentioned that in another thread).

    So, please propose what you consider to be right for inclusion in 1.5.

    > I am not sure what the difference is between "d MMMM yyyy" and "dd MMMM
    > yyyy".

    The difference is as follows: to-day is "5 June 2006" or "05 June 2006".

    > And generally, I don't know how to look at that data in a more human
    > friendly form.
    >
    > Cristi
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 05 2006 - 07:13:07 CDT