RE: Re: ISSUE-270: Problem with fonts-glyph-03-t.svg?

Hi Chris,

(copying public-i18n-core)

a) without knowing what your test case is about, it's hard to provide a
clear answer.  However, it is likely that testing for zh-Hans/t would be
useful, although you may want to continue testing for zh-TW and zh-CN if
people are likely to have used or continue to use those labels. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040429.113217290 for more
information.

b) I believe you should indeed update your references to point to BCP 47 at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt (note that BCP47 includes both
RFC 4646 and RFC 4647).

Hope that helps
RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
 
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/blog/
http://rishida.net/

 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] 
> Sent: 24 October 2007 12:15
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: W3C SVG Working Group
> Subject: Fwd: Re: ISSUE-270: Problem with fonts-glyph-03-t.svg?
> 
> This is a forwarded message
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Can you confirm that 
> 
> a) our test case should be using zh-Hant and zh-Hans rather 
> than zh-tw and zh-cn
> b) we should update the references to point to just BCP 47 
> which obsoletes RFC 3066 http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt
> 
> 
> From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
> To: w3c-svg-wg@w3.org
> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007, 7:57:51 AM
> Subject: ISSUE-270: Problem with fonts-glyph-03-t.svg?
> 
> ===8<==============Original message text===============
> 
> Cameron McCormack:
> > I agree with this fix, but I think it should also say that the 
> > comparisons are done case-insensitively (since IETF 
> language tags are 
> > case insensitive).
> 
> > zh-tw and zh-cn specify Chinese as written in Taiwan and mainland 
> > China respectively.  You could use script subtags to 
> specify whether 
> > it?s traditional or simplified Chinese regardless of the 
> country, with 
> > zh-Hant and zh-Hans.  BCP 47 has a more detailed language 
> tag matching 
> > algorithm (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647) than just doing the 
> > substring thing.  Should we be using that instead?
> 
> I see that BCP 47 is a normative reference, but in the 
> references section it refers to RFC 3066 rather than RFC 
> 4647.  So I?m of the opinion that these language tag 
> comparisons are updated to match the algorithm in RFC 4647.
> 
> --
> Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
>         xmpp:heycam@jabber.org  ?  ICQ 26955922  ?  MSN cam@mcc.id.au
> 
> ===8<===========End of original message text===========
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Interaction Domain Leader
>  C0-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 12:15:32 UTC