W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

I18n comment: en-cockney

From: <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:44:38 +0000
To: www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060121104435.68AB74F1D3@homer.w3.org>

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/

Comment 10
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-css3-selectors/
Editorial/substantive: E
Location in reviewed document:
Sec. 6.3.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/#attribute-representation]

Comment:
"including "en", "en-US", and "en-cockney""


Since en-cockney is not currently an allowable value according to RFC3066, I suggest you use something different, such as en-GB (UK English).



> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
> Sent: 20 January 2006 15:22

> Regarding #10, while I am not sure what's wrong with 
> en-cockney, it would be good if the I18N Core Working Group 
> could check other TRs and RFCs for this error and report it 
> as appropriate. This would then be a rather common error.


> From: Richard Ishida
> Sent: 20 January 2006 15:54

> > Regarding #10, while I am not sure what's wrong with 
> > en-cockney, 
> 
> Allowable values according to RFC 3066 are 
> <iso-language-code> eg. 'en', or 
> <iso-language-code>-<iso-country-code> eg. 'en-GB', or 
> a tag from the IANA registry at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags (in which 
> en-cockney does not
> appear).
> 
> > it would be good if the I18N Core Working Group 
> > could check other TRs and RFCs for this error and report it 
> > as appropriate. This would then be a rather common error.
> 
> Yes, we should.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 10:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT