Hoi,
The important thing to recognise is that the names of languages is only one
aspect of what makes the CLDR. There are many more details to the CLDR,
collation for instance. This is where the WMF is not that interested in
following the standard even though it recognises that the point made by the
CLDR is valid.
What both the WMF and Unicode need (CLDR is a Unicode standard), is the
information that is what the CLDR is about for any and all languages. For
Unicode it is vital that the standard is correct.. as correct as humanly
possible. When the WMF was to collect all the information needed for all
languages, when it would use it with the explicit understanding to have it
flow towards Unicode's CLDR standard, there is a chance that there will be
winners.
However do realise that this is hard work. You will need to improve
cautiously on the existing processes and data. It will take a considerable
amount of time and it can work.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 1 March 2013 20:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
JP Béland, 01/03/2013 20:00:
I understand those type of organisations are responsible to establish
standards. However, if they don't provide the
support we need as a
project (and I mean WMF projects), maybe we need to look at ways to
develop our own means to ''by-pass'' or ''orverride''
some of the info
we are getting from those standardisation organisations.
Just opening the thoughts...
No, just ask our CLDR contacts (Amir and Santhosh, maybe someone else too)
to use Wikimedia's vote as you think needed for Wikimedia.
It's possible that you're not using the most correct process (CLDR is not
super-easy): bugs are easier but less formal, they're very nice and helpful
but if it gets controversial it may not be handled in the most formal way
which includes "voting".
Nemo
______________________________**_________________
Languages mailing list
Languages(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/languages<https://lists.w…