comments below.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat, 2004 Apr 24 06:12
Subject: R
> From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In fact I would like to see that "Traditional" and "Simplified"
Chinese
> are
> distinct languages in the same family. And an application would better
use
> "zht"
> and "zhs" language codes to make the distinction, so that "zh" would
> become an
>
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For now, the only workable solution to solve these issues is found in
> > supplementary libraries in ICU which support locale aliases. (Yes I
> > use the terme Locale because this is the term that Java gives to this
> > identification,
>
> NO. That is
> From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What is already unstable in ISO639 is the deprecation of "iw" and the
> addition
> of "he", same thing for "in" and "id" or for "yi" and "ji". Don't you
call
> that
> unstability?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. As I understand it, IS
> A time may come when they decide they
> want their own language, Walloon. At that time they will no doubt ask
> for appropriate ISO etc codes.
There's nothing futuristic about that: "wln"
(http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html#uvwxyz)
Peter Constable
> From: Mark Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You can reiterate it all you want; in practice, 3066 tags are used as
> locale
> identifiers. And for a narrow sense of locales, that is perfectly
> reasonable.
> For a broad sense of "locale", including timezone, user's currency,
> religious
> prefe
On 23/04/2004 17:15, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Think more recently about the new codification for Serbo-Croatian, and the split
of "sh", with no definition except that it is country based (Serbian, Croatian,
Bosnian, Montenegrin), assimuming that one country uses only one language when
in fact th
Mark Davis scripsit:
> ISO 3066 has *demonstrated* instability, because they remove codes,
> then reuse those codes for different entities. It'd be like our removing
> a character, then later putting a different character in that spot*.
That's ISO 3166, of course, not RFC 3066.
--
Eric Raymond
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Unicode List" <[EM
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> By unstable I mean in fact ambiguous, even for the correct designation
> of languages with a code that can be recognized. Even the proposal to
> supercede ISO 3066 with new tags has its caveats: which code must an
> application use when it already defines multiple ones (
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think that the CLDR database is extremely important for software
> > implementations, because it avoids some caveats that come from other
> unstable
> > standards such as ISO 3166 and ISO 639.
>
> ISO 639 is not unstable. It is an open code set that
Mike Ayers scripsit:
> Furthermore, in the IETF document architecture, the only way to
> amend an RFC is by a superceding RFC. RFCs are superceded all the time.
Almost. It's also possible for an RFC to update older RFCs without
superseding them completely. For example, RFC 2396 (URI synt
Title: RE: Common Locale Data Repository Project
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 4:31 PM
> At 16:18 -0700 2004-04-23, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >But let me reiterate from my correction
At 16:18 -0700 2004-04-23, Peter Constable wrote:
But let me reiterate from my correction to Philippe: even the
replacement of RFC 3066 is a specification for *language*
identification, not *locale* identification.
And it is to supercede RFC 3066, with a new edition. That's different
from replaci
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Philippe Verdy
> In fact if ISO 3066 is later standardized, the designation and use of
locales
> could become its own API supporting standard identifiers.
I really don't want to get into this discussion but can't let this point
g
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Mark Davis
> You are talking about Locale IDs. There is currently work underway on
an RFC to
> replace 3066
But let me reiterate from my correction to Philippe: even the
replacement of RFC 3066 is a specification for *language*
i
st" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri, 2004 Apr 23 02:58
Subject: Re: Common Locale Data Repository Project
> From: "Antoine Leca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > And even if a section isn't scoped specifically in terms of a
> > > Unix-derived platf
> From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > due to the strong perception of OpenI18N.org as
> > opensource/Linux advocates, even though CLDR project is not
> > specifically bound to Linux.
> It is hard to look at OpenI18N.org's spec and not get the impression
> that all of that group's projec
From: "Antoine Leca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > And even if a section isn't scoped specifically in terms of a
> > Unix-derived platform, it may specify requirements that are explicitly
> > related to Unix implementations (e.g. that base libraries must support
> > POSIX i18n environment variables).
>
>
On Friday, April 23, 2004 7:02 AM
Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> va escriure:
>> due to the strong perception of OpenI18N.org as
>> opensource/Linux advocates, even though CLDR project is not
>> specifically bound to Linux.
>
> It is hard to look at OpenI18N.org's spec and not get the impress
> due to the strong perception of OpenI18N.org as
> opensource/Linux advocates, even though CLDR project is not
> specifically bound to Linux.
It is hard to look at OpenI18N.org's spec and not get the impression
that all of that group's projects are not bound to some flavour of Unix.
The "Scope" c
> However, a bigger question emerges with the release of the draft version
> of UTS 35. What happened to TR 33 and TR 34? Indeed, what are they?
> Something must be at least tentatively planned for those numbers, but
> there isn't anything available publicly at least.
Working drafts of some mat
> From: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is that a contribution of the Unicode Consortium to the OpenI18n.org
> project (former li18nux.org, maintained with most help from the
> FSF), or a decision to make the OpenI18n.org project be more open by
> pushing it to a more visible standard?
More
From: Philippe Verdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Unicode® Consortium announced today that it will be hosting the
> > Common Locale Data Repository project, providing key building blocks
> > for software t
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Unicode® Consortium announced today that it will be hosting the Common
> Locale Data Repository project, providing key building blocks for software
> to support the world's languages.
>
> For more information and li
The Unicode® Consortium announced today that it will be hosting the Common
Locale Data Repository project, providing key building blocks for software
to support the world's languages.
For more information and links to the project pages, please see:
http://www.unicode.org/
26 matches
Mail list logo
