The Unicode Standard and ISO
Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Tue Jun 12 12:49:10 CDT 2018
> I usually recommend creating a new project first...
That is often a viable approach. But proponents shouldn't get the wrong
impression. I think the chance of anything resembling the "localized
sentences" / "international message components" have zero chance of being
adopted by Unicode (including the encoding, CLDR, anything). It is a waste
of many people's time discussing it further on this list.
Why? As discussed many times on this list, it would take a major effort, is
not scoped properly (the translation of messages depends highly on context,
including specific products), and would not meet the needs of practically
People interested in this topic should
(a) start up their own project somewhere else,
(b) take discussion of it off this list,
(c) never bring it up again on this list.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> On 12/06/18 12:26, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> > Hi Marcel
> > > I don’t fully disagree with Asmus, as I suggested to make available
> localizable (and effectively localized) libraries of message components,
> rather than of entire messages.
> > Could you possibly give some examples of the message components to which
> you refer please?
> Likewise I’d be interested in asking Jonathan Rosenne for an example or
> two of automated translation from English to bidi languages with data
> as on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:42:38 +0000, Jonathan Rosenne via Unicode wrote:
> > > > One has to see it to believe what happens to messages translated
> mechanically from English to bidi languages when data is embedded in the
> But both would require launching a new thread.
> Thinking hard enough, I’m even afraid that most subscribers wouldn’t be
> interested, so we’d have to move off-list.
> One alternative I can think of is to use one of the CLDR mailing lists. I
> subscribed to CLDR-users when I was directed to move there some technical
> about keyboard layouts from Unicode Public.
> But now as international message components are not yet a part of CLDR,
> we’d need to ask for extra permission to do so.
> An additional drawback of launching a technical discussion right now is
> that significant parts of CLDR data are not yet correctly localized so
> there is another
> bunch of priorities under July 11 deadline. I guess that vendors wouldn’t
> be glad to see us gathering data for new structures while level=Modern
> isn’t complete.
> In the meantime, you are welcome to contribute and to motivate missing
> people to do the same.
> Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode