On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:30:04AM +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@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 approach creates. 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@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. IMnsHO. -- The choice of a -----==- _GNU_ ----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ pcg@goof.com --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/ -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE