Re: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

Currently we say in sec. 3.2 about the i18n:locale element

Its value MUST be either a valid [LDML] locale identifier or one of the 
values "$neutral" or "$default".

Dan said about "locale" information in his comment just "already 
defined". So I'd like to hear from Dan how important it is for you that 
we currently use LDML with "_" or if we could use BCP 47 with "-", or 
something else.

Felix


Frank Ellermann さんは書きました:
> Phillips, Addison wrote:
>
>   
>>> For locales names in the language_territory format "_" is
>>> AFAIK the standard, compare chapter 8.2 in IEEE Std 1003.1
>>>       
>  
>   
>> For POSIX, sure.
>>     
>
> That is what "locale" stands for.  Like "language tag" is what 
> RFC 1766 and its successors say, and where we'd use "-".  The
> OP wrote:
>
> | Here is a list of items that we think are common:
> |  1. Locale (already defined)
> |  2. Timezone (already defined)
> |  3. Language (used when UI language is different from the
> | language deduced from the UI locale. e.g. "de" for German
> | language, "fr-CH" for Switzerland/French locale)
> |  4. Collation (based on the IANA collation registry)
> [...}
>
> Maybe he confused the terminology, he needs "language tags"
> in (3), and fr-CH is a "language tag".  In point (4) ff. he
> mentions some IANA registries, he could also do this in (3).
>
> But (1) is apparently about locales, not about the language
> tags covered in (3).  So in (1) we'd say fr_CH, not fr-CH.
>
> That is an important difference, locales come with various
> settings down to currency symbols, but there are not many
> to pick from.  OTOH language tags are only about languages
> and maybe scripts, and there are lots of valid no-nonsense
> combinations.  
>
>   
>> there are other locale systems where this isn't the case
>> or for which the separator is indeterminate. There is *no*
>> definition of 'locale' for the Web and/or Internet
>>     
>
> Well, when I look at the CLDR pages they use unsurprisingly
> "_", not "-".  That's arguably two standards, POSIX and CLDR.
>
>   
>> There is no particular reason to use POSIX locales on the
>> Internet and there is some history of abusing BCP 47 for
>> the purpose already.
>>     
>
> Disagree, I see no reason to "abuse" the IANA language subtag 
> registry for something it is not, a locale registry, because
> there is already a CLDR with different goals.  
>
>   
>> If we allow underscore is may actually be harmful, since it
>> may promote the possibly-erroneous assumption that we mean
>> POSIX locales.
>>     
>
> Or CLDR locales.  It's a rather useful difference, "i-default" 
> is no locale, and "C" is no human language.  With "en_GB" I'd
> get an odd (from my POV) date format, with "en_US" I lose the
> metric system, get alien temperatures, and a currency backed
> by hot air.  Which isn't my plan when I say "en-GB" or "en-US".
>
>  Frank
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 04:59:08 UTC