Time Zone Localizations
mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Fri Jun 11 15:25:34 UTC 2004
Actually, this is directly related, since LDML is the format used for CLDR.
However, the comment is based on a misunderstanding: LDML currently does allow
for translation of *all* of the timezone IDs, modern and historical.
The problems we are trying to address with this proposal are that the sheer
volume of translations is difficult to manage, *and* many languages just don't
have corresponding terms. And we didn't give guidance before as to which IDs
were the most important to translate, so the translations that are in CLDR were
not done in any kind of priority order.
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Masayoshi Okutsu" <Masayoshi.Okutsu at Sun.COM>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Cc: <tz at lecserver.nci.nih.gov>
Sent: Fri, 2004 Jun 11 06:43
Subject: Re: Time Zone Localizations
This is a bit off from the proposal, but related to time zone localizations.
It appears that the Locale Data Markup Language spec for <timeZoneNames>
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/#%3CtimeZoneNames%3E) assumes that
a time zone has a single set of long and short names, which assumption
is not valid if a system supports historical time zone changes.
Actually, the time zone support in Java has this problem because it
supports historical changes since 1.4 and always display the "latest"
time zone names. I planned to fix it in J2SE 1.5 (a.k.a. Tiger), but I
couldn't due to another commitment.
Is it possible for CLDR to make corrections to the <timeZoneNames> spec
so that it can represent all historical name changes?
Sun Microsystems (K.K.)
Mark Davis wrote:
>The common locale data repository project (CLDR) hosted by the Unicode
>consortium (www.unicode.org/cldr/) provides for translations of time zone IDs,
>based on the public domain time zone database at ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov/pub/.
>number of issues have come up concerning those translations, and we have put
>together a proposal for changing the way that is done. The goal would be to
>changes in CLDR 1.1, which would be released around mid-October of this year.
>The current version of the proposal is at:
>I'd very much appreciate any feedback on the proposal.
>► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
More information about the tz