[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       glibc-locales
Subject:    CLDR support?
From:       cjlhomeaddress () gmail ! com (Chris Leonard)
Date:       2016-05-15 6:19:00
Message-ID: CAHdAatbiU9aXnS2yXXLd6LXvbjzjYtq-y7fuvWGrcEDuMrL=sw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Steven R. Loomis <srl@icu-project.org> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> After I sent the previous note, I remembered that cldr and glibc are
> actually related datasets -- given
> http://unicode.org/iuc/iuc18/papers/a2-paper.pdf  and commits such as
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=5d96a5f68915ac7edbe54b1ebfaf9c7c500fdd1c
> - some data was extracted from the dataset that was to become cldr.

Both of your referenecs are 15 years old, interesting from a
historical perspective, but not very relevant to the current
situation.

> I'm neither authorized nor informed enough (not sure which I'm less of) to
> make a statement about qu/quz/quy but I will say that cldr now has
> mechanisms to potentially have quy and quz inherit from qu- so any
> distinctions could be represented without wholesale duplication of effort. I
> also know that qu and other locales in South America have seen increased
> attention in the past two years in cldr.

Yes, the emergence of the indigenous languages of Central and South
American indigenous languages in FOSS is an important trend, making it
all the more important to not forestall the advancement of additional
languages by rolling up to macrolanguage codes as a default.  You or I
would hardly be satisfied with one 'Romance language" locale.

>  What's the right way forward? I'll bring this up on cldr's weekly call.

I've been pondering that question.  I think a consultation with
stakeholders, including speakers and providers of services (e.g. MinEd
Peru) to those langauge communities would be important.

cjl


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]