From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2007 - 11:01:05 CDT
Actually, I will answer a few items here, just to prevent any
misunderstandings, but any responses should go to the cldr-users list.
On 5/30/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> There are disputed entries that were part of CLDR 1.4 by error : it was
> not even possible to avoid them to be released, because the proposal period
> for CLDR 1.4 was extremely short (about one month), it was not announced
> clearly in advanced (a single message posted to the Unicode list, that was
> not delivered to every one), and then inaccessible for a part of that period
> (lots of technical problems of performance on the server, even during that
> period).
>
>
>
> The result was that the CLDR 1.4 contained many entries fro which it was
> later impossible to vote AGAINST their addition.
>
This is not the case. Previous values can be overridden; see the process
documentation.
> I have made several comments on the CLDR forum about the other problems
> that the system does: lack of consistency between multiple entries is
> another problem, notably for naming conventions:
>
> * how to insert less-significant words for language names in lists (words
> like "languages" used for the names of language families or groups, using
> commas)?
>
> * how to consistantly use singular or plural, use of neutral or feminine
>
> * how to differentiate names for use in isolation within text, or in short
> form (like in data tables), or in long lists for input forms (like
> combo-boxes, where languages should be sorted)
>
> * how to indicate language qualifiers (using parentheses, which may be
> optionally removed, like dates)?
>
> * how to indicate acceptable language name variants (there are multiple
> names even in reference documents like ISO standards, and the Unicode
> standard itself), and a "preferred" name that does not exclude the other
> names as incorrect?
>
> * how to identify special names (such as [mis]="miscellaneous languages",
> or [root]="Root"): should they be made easily distinctable in lists?
>
These are good issues to bring up. Where you have general questions on
overall policies, those should be addressed to the cldr-users list, not to
the forums.
The forums are new to this release, and are intended to provide another
channel of communication. However, until the start of the vetting phase,
they have not had RSS feeds or email notification, so the translators for
particular languages may not be seeing the postings that have been made.
> Note that unfortunately, if some alternate proposals were made, they were
> DELETED recently from the CLDR if they currently had no vote for them when
> the proposal phase was ended.
>
We had changed the process for 1.5 so that if anyone votes on an item, it
will be retained for the next release.
> Really, if there remains disputed entries, there should be a review at end
> by the CLDR comity, that will read the posted comments in the forum, will
> consider not only the votes but what was the nature of the different
> proposals and why they were made (a simple automatic voting system can't
> track that).
>
The forums are provided for the translators. The committee can make
decisions on the items, but will not be reading each and every forum entry.
If near the end of the vetting period you still believe that there are
significant problems in the data, you should file one bug listing those key
items, and the committee will consider them.
The committee has a weekly meeting, and does review all of the bugs that are
submitted. However, if the bug is long and convoluted, it is too difficult
for the committee to assess correctly and give it the proper consideration.
So I cannot stress too much to make each communication as short and to the
point as possible.
-- Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 11:02:47 CDT