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

Re: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

From: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@ORACLE.COM>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:26:57 -0700
Message-ID: <485ADD31.6050402@oracle.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: www-international@w3.org

Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, I am.

Regards,
-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 Thursday, 19 June 2008 22:27:59 GMT

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