Dataset for all ISO639 code sorted by country/territory?

[Steven R. Loomis]

El 11/21/16 11:08 AM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Philippe Verdy" <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> escribió:



2016-11-21 1:50 GMT+01:00 Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com>:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 22:53:54 +0100
Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> I think it just requires a minimal dataset: ask for it, submit the
> data, it will be made available for vetting, and if vetting makes it
> suitable for publication with the minimal core set of properties, it
> will be added to the published list.

The minimal data set can be difficult to collect, and may actually be
impossible.  There may be technical issues - can one actually specify
that today's date is "a.d. XI Kal. Dec. a.u.c. MMDCCLXIX" in
Classical Latin?

Yes, you can use numbering system “roman” (uppercase) http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/bcp47/number.xml


…
For now let's remain in scope: CLDR must first address the needs for current modern variants, as they are used today. Many other locales (or sublocales) are possible in data but will never reach CLDR standardization, unless there's an active community and an autority still using the historic forms (e.g. for "nearly official" religious or ceremonial usage, which is IMHO a legitimate reason to encode them as, effectively, these historic forms are not really extinct). This remark will apply as well to Biblic Greek, Biblic/Masoretic Hebrew, Biblic Geez (in Ethiopia), Biblic Georgian, or Coranic Arabic that have significant and important differences with the vernacular modern "standard" languages for Greek, Hebrew, Geez, Georgian, and Arabic: these **living** religious variants should be IMHO encoded in CLDR.

If someone provides data for them and maintains them, yes. 

-s


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20161121/bcb59bc8/attachment.html>