Martin J. Dürst duerst at
Mon Jan 2 03:19:45 CET 2017

Hello Mark,

On 2016/12/22 18:05, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> The T mechanism isn't intended to be a kitchen-sink extension.

Thanks for confirming this.

> The much
> more general mechanism is the U one, which by now has a variety of
> different settings.

Ah, yes, forgot about that. I think it would be much better then to use 
the U extension.

> The initial focus for the T was on more classic
> transforms, such as transliteration, so much of the discussion and examples
> were centered around that. The scope will always be limited by the the goal
> to have a source locale that influences in some way a target locale — much
> more constrained than the U extension — but there was no intent to limit
> the scope to be overly narrow.

I agree with the "no overly narrow limit". But I think that in general, 
it's very difficult to explain language switching/mixing with a source 
and a target locale.

> Here's the ticket, and comments are welcome:
> Because of the winter holidays,
> the CLDR committee will not take this up before January.

I have added a comment, mostly to point back to this list, where most of 
the discussion is taking place.

Happy New Year to everybody,   Martin.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list