On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:56:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> It's pushing this kind of impractical scheme that gives standardizers a bad
> name.
>
> Especially if it is immediately tied to governmental procurement, forcing
> people to adopt it (or live with it)
> whether it provide
Marcel,
The idea is not necessarily without merit. However, CLDR does not usually
expand scope just because of a suggestion.
I usually recommend creating a new project first - gathering data, looking
at and talking to projects to ascertain the usefulness of common messages..
one of the barriers
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:56:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 6/9/2018 12:01 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > Still a computer should be understandable off-line, so CLDR providing a
> > standard library of error messages could be
> > appreciated by the industry.
>
> The k
On 6/9/2018 12:01 PM, Marcel Schneider
via Unicode wrote:
Still a computer should be understandable off-line, so CLDR providing a standard library of error messages could be
appreciated by the industry.
The kind of translations that CLDR accumulates,
On the other hand, most end-users don’t appreciate to get “a screenfull of
all-in-English” when “something happened.”
If even big companies still didn’t succeed in getting automatted computer
translation to work for error messages, then
best practice could eventually be to provide an internet li
Translated error messages are a horror story. Often I have to play around with
my locale settings to avoid them. Using computer translation on programming
error messages is no way near to being useful.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Rosenne
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf
2018-06-09 17:22 GMT+02:00 Marcel Schneider via Unicode :
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 09:47:01 +0100, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 08:23:33 +0200 (CEST)
> > Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > > > Where there is opportunity for productive sync and merging with
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 09:47:01 +0100, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 08:23:33 +0200 (CEST)
> Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>
> > > Where there is opportunity for productive sync and merging with is
> > > glibc. We have had some discussions, but more needs to be d
I just see the WG2 as a subcomity where governements may just check their
practices and make minimum recommendations. Most governements are in fact
very late to adopt the industry standards that evolve fast, and they just
want to reduce the frequency of necessary changes jsut to enterinate what
see
Thanks, it definitely looks like there are some mismatches in terminology
there. Can you please file this with the reporting form on the unicode site?
{phone}
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018, 05:00 Yifán Wáng via Unicode
wrote:
> When I'm looking at
> https://unicode.org/Public/emoji/11.0/emoji-sequences.t
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 08:23:33 +0200 (CEST)
Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > Where there is opportunity for productive sync and merging with is
> > glibc. We have had some discussions, but more needs to be done-
> > especially a lot of tooling work. Currently many bug reports are
> > duplicat
11 matches
Mail list logo
