On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:20:09 -0700, Steven R. Loomis via Unicode wrote: […] > But, it sounds like the CLDR process was successful in this case. Thank you >for contributing. You are welcome, but thanks are due to the actual corporate contributors.
[…] > Actually, I think the particular data item you found is relatively new. The > first values entered > for it in any language were May 18th of this year. Were there votes for > "keycap" earlier? The "keycap" category is found as soon as in v30 (released 2016-10-05). > Rather than a tracer finding evidence of neglect, you are at the forefront of > progressing the translated data for French. Congratulations! The neglect is on my part as I neglected to check the data history. Please note that I did not make accusations of neglect. Again: The historic Code Charts translators, partly still active, sulk CLDR because Unicode is perceived as sulking ISO/IEC 15897, so that minimal staff is actively translating CLDR for the French locale and can legitimately feel forsaken. I even made detailed suppositions as of how it could happen that "keycap" remained untranslated. […] [Unanswered questions (please refer to my other e‐mails in this thread)] > The registry for ISO/IEC 15897 has neither data for French, nor structure > that would translate the term "Characters | Category | Label | keycap". > So there would be nothing to merge with there. Correct. The only data for French is an ISO/IEC 646 charset: http://std.dkuug.dk/cultreg/registrations/number/156 As far as I can see there are available data to merge for Danish, Faroese, Finnish Greenlandic, Norwegian, and Swedish. > So, historically, CLDR began not a part of Unicode, but as part of Li18nx > under the Free Standards Group. See the bottom of the page > http://cldr.unicode.org/index/acknowledgments > "The founding members of the workgroup were IBM, Sun and OpenOffice.org". > What we were trying to do was to provide internationalized content for Linux, > and also, to resolve the then-disparity between locale data > across platforms. Locale data was very divergent between platforms - spelling > and word choice changes, etc. Comparisons were done > and a Common locale data repository (with its attendant XML formats) > emerged. That's the C in CLDR. Seed data came from IBM’s ICIR > which dates many decades before 15897 (example > http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/13342/IBM-National-Language-Support-Reference-Manual-Volume-2/ > - 4th edition published in 1994.) 100 locales we contributed to glibc as well. Thank you for the account and resources. The Linux Internationalization Initiative appears to have issued a last release on August 23, 2000: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/83 the year before ISO/IEC 15897 was lastly updated: http://std.dkuug.dk/cultreg/registrations/chreg.htm > 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 > duplicated between glibc and cldr, a sort of manual synchronization. > Help wanted here. Noted. For my part, sadly for C libraries I’m unlikely to be of any help. Marcel