Re: [ltli] Definition of Unicode Locale (#25)

> A Unicode Locale can include a combination of certain language tag extensions ([RFC6067], [RFC6497]), *although it is not required to do so.*

The need to introduce the extensions may swamp that message, but it's important to note that several specifications (most importantly ECMA-402) have adopted Unicode locale identifiers as a term. It's the rules, not the extensions, that are important in most cases.

As usual, you make a good point about the visibility of the text I emphasized above. You have to read all the way past the next definition and the mustard to reach:

> It is important to remember that every Unicode locale identifier is also a well-formed [BCP47] language tag.

... and this still fails to emphasize that most language tags are good enough without extensions. *The extensions exist to provide finer tailoring if and only if the user needs it.*

Perhaps split this bit of text off the second paragraph quoted above to emphasize it?

> Unicode locale identifiers are well-formed [BCP47] language tags. [CLDR] also specifies some additional rules about the structure and content of the Unicode Locale's language tag as well as supplying specific interpretation of certain subtags. See Section 3.2 of [LDML] for details. 

I think we could then clear up the confusion by adding one more mustard item with explanation:

> *Content authors SHOULD NOT include extensions in their language tags unless their specific application requires the additional tailoring.*

>Unicode locale identifiers do not require the `-u-` or `-t-` extensions. These should only be used when the subtags in them are actually needed by the application.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aphillips
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/ltli/issues/25#issuecomment-701438443 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2020 14:45:48 UTC