On 03/05/2016 08:17, Jeff Walden wrote: > On 04/30/2016 01:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> I still find it sad that ECMAScript Intl came (as I understand it) >> very close to just standardizing on a piece of software (ICU) > > I'm fuzzy on the details as well, but I don't believe it was ever > going to be the case that the spec would be "do what ICU does". > Language *had* to be hand-wavy, because what is the custom in one > language now, will not always be the custom. So some flexibility must > be granted to accommodate this, as well as to not (in effect) specify > entire languages as they exist right now. > > Now, in *practice* it might work out that behaviors would be what ICU > does. But even there I'm not so sure about it. What ICU does, as I > understand it, is approximately only what CLDR (all the > language/locale-specific information about formatting, pluralization, > word-breaking, etc.), plus standardized things like IETF BCP 47, > tells it to. And CLDR's purview is not really areas where technical > debate/disagreement/dissent makes a whole lot of sense, because it's > just setting down what the rest of the world does.
Given the "two different implementations rule" is there any suitable alternative to ICU? I mean besides rolling our own. Phil -- Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.c...@gmail.com> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
