Re: Traditional Chinese in RFC3066 bis

Unfortunately, language tags are used for more than language, which is why I
raised the question.

Also, the context was not just about the tag, but what is an appropriate
migration strategy.

If an application is using zh-TW already, is the recommendation to switch to
zh-hant or to zh-hant-TW, or perhaps you need to use all 3 tags depending on
the particular purpose of the tag within the application.
I can see different answers based on whether I am tagging a resource,
requesting a resource, performing transliteration or using a voice reader,
choosing a date format, etc.

Unfortunately without a well-defined fallback strategy that relates the 3
components, it is difficult to know what the application will do if an inexact
match occurs, making changes risky. (Perhaps also making not changing risky.)

But I think there should be a recommendation so software can interoperate.

Maybe we should bring this discussion to the lang list rather than here?

(I had intended to discuss this with the authors of 3066bis and not a forum
like this one. But it came up as a matter of course in the work of the w3c i18n
GEO's tutorial on language tags)
tex



Richard Ishida wrote:
> Hmm.  I tend to see it as somewhat orthogonal, which is why in the format I proposed way back I separated it out as, for example, "zh-TW/Hant" - ie. "<lang+dialect>/<script>" - which btw would also allow you to say "/Hant" (ie. 'I know it uses the Traditional Chinese script, but I don't know what language') as well as match easily with existing zh-TW.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 15:00:55 UTC