CLDR-17971 kbd: (dtd/spec) add <info attribution=…> attribute

[srl295]

• and example files

CLDR-17971

• This PR completes the ticket.

ALLOW_MANY_COMMITS=true

[srl295]

Review note: kbd-check will fail here until the tooling catches up with unreleased version v47. please ignore.

[miloush]

Like I mentioned at the meeting, I am not keen on saying the "attribution" attribute is to be used for "reference" purposes, which is a semantic piece of metadata. Attribution can also sound like endorsement. I am fine with adding "attribution" attribute that lists contributors, but if we want to include an information about which standard is the layout based on, maybe we could have "basedOn" attribute or "reference" or similar.

If the usage of the attribute written in this PR is what you are going for, then it should be called something else like "reference". If the name of the attribute in this PR is what you are going for (and I have no objections to adding it), then the usage text should be rewritten to indicate it is meant for attribution, not source standards.

[srl295]

Like I mentioned at the meeting, I am not keen on saying the "attribution" attribute is to be used for "reference" purposes, which is a semantic piece of metadata. Attribution can also sound like endorsement. I am fine with adding "attribution" attribute that lists contributors, but if we want to include an information about which standard is the layout based on, maybe we could have "basedOn" attribute or "reference" or similar.

If the usage of the attribute written in this PR is what you are going for, then it should be called something else like "reference". If the name of the attribute in this PR is what you are going for (and I have no objections to adding it), then the usage text should be rewritten to indicate it is meant for attribution, not source standards.

A full semantic model might be something more like OCI annotations https://specs.opencontainers.org/image-spec/annotations/#pre-defined-annotation-keys - we could have key-value pairs for additional data. I think what you are saying is that attribution="Malta Standards Authority" (typo in the file, i'll update) rather than having the standard number there.

[srl295]

@miloush the standards name is more appropriate as part of the keyboard name

[srl295]

@miloush you said you were OK with the current formulation?

[miloush]

I am OK with the attribute but the description in the spec is the opposite of what we agreed, isn't it?

[srl295]

I am OK with the attribute but the description in the spec is the opposite of what we agreed, isn't it?

Does this capture it now? Or can you suggest a change?

[srl295]

@unicode-org/cldr-keyboards ping? can i get a review on this?

[mcdurdin]

LGTM