schmorp at schmorp.de
Mon Jun 6 22:04:43 UTC 2005
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:30:04AM +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> wrote:
> My personal preference, though, would be for you to stop trying to hammer
> round pegs into this trapezoidal hole.
I faintly remember that this discussion went in a similar direction the
first time the CLDR came up here, and the suggestions were ignored.
The principial problem is indeed that the CLDR wants to enforce
unrealistic terms and rules, and now it runs into the problems that this
Any "standard" that does this will likely fall into disuse because people
won't accept them due to their incompatibility with reality.
The people behind the CLDR should _really_ re-think the whole process and
their goals. There is considerable knowledge about these issues on this list
(me excluded), and I don't think dismissing that is a good idea.
From: Peter Ilieve <peter at aldie.co.uk>
> I disagree. There is a set of slides (in PowerPoint format, so much
> for open standards
Lots of details about the CLDR project sound strange. It doesn't look
well-researched or well-designed. Now would be a greta time to change that.
The choice of a
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ pcg at goof.com
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
More information about the tz