Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 19:38:22 EDT

Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: SSP default ignorable characters, was: Variation selectors and vowel marks"

Previous message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: Proposal to add 2 Romanian characters"
In reply to: Rick McGowan: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Next in thread: Antoine Leca: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Reply: Antoine Leca: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On 26/04/2004 10:47, Rick McGowan wrote:

>...
>
>(As usual, this is all my own opinion, and does not reflect any official policy.)
>
>

Really? Is it simply chance that this debate has ALL of the Unicode
officers on one side and EVERYONE else who has contributed to the
discussion on the other side? OK, the policy may be unofficial, but it
does seem to be a coherent policy which is being pursued despite the
preferences of the list membership as a whole.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: SSP default ignorable characters, was: Variation selectors and vowel marks"
Previous message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: Proposal to add 2 Romanian characters"
In reply to: Rick McGowan: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Next in thread: Antoine Leca: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Reply: Antoine Leca: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 20:11:51 EDT