W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:20 +0900
Message-ID: <48572EDC.2010008@w3.org>
To: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>
CC: www-international@w3.org

Dan Chiba さんは書きました:
>
> I totally agree. Can we all settle on this?

Just to be sure: I said

"I agree. Addison asked to decide whether we should use "-" (BCP 47 
like) or "_" (LDML like) as a delimiter. We could choose "-" but make 
explicit that "_" might be used too if people want to be compliant to LDML."

Addison said "I don't think that we'd be serving the community well by 
allowing multiple formats here. ". So it sounds like Addison (and Frank) 
are not agreeing with that part: "We could choose "-" but make explicit 
that "_" might be used too if people want to be compliant to LDML.". So 
are you fine with allowing only "-", Dan?

Felix

>
> Regards,
> -Dan
>
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>
>> Dan Chiba さんは書きました:
>>> Practically BCP 47 is also a locale identification scheme and using 
>>> "-" for both #1 locale and #3 language is preferred, for 
>>> consistency. I think accepting both is a good idea, and more 
>>> important than which is the standard.
>>
>> I agree. Addison asked to decide whether we should use "-" (BCP 47 
>> like) or "_" (LDML like) as a delimiter. We could choose "-" but make 
>> explicit that "_" might be used too if people want to be compliant to 
>> LDML.
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 Tuesday, 17 June 2008 03:27:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:17 GMT