4 Votes

[Yury Tarasievich]

Apropos of noone's affiliations, this is not how 
the scheme is actually working, at least not 
when the -- ordinary speaking -- 'politics' gets in.

To provide a current example, certain well-known 
search service even now uses some off-beat 
definitions for the language names in its 
interface in language X. Off-beat to the point 
of being incomprehensible to the language X 
users, I 'kid you not'. I'm pretty certain no 
language X standardising body mandated this 
input. So who put it there and on what grounds?

CLDR and some other bodies in similar position 
tend to go for the broder coverage 
(crowd-sourcing the product, as it seems). This, 
however, means that their representations of 
some (more marginal? unsufficiently stabilised?) 
languages' cultures get 'shoddy' or plainly 
diverge from the actual conditions.

What's the expected result then, I wonder? Is it 
an internet user hurrying to file an issue? An 
internet user going 'pfff', more like.

-Yury

On 05/18/2015 02:25 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> Let me set out some of our constraints first—so
> that people can understand what we can and can't
> do—but we'd be glad to take suggestions that
...