- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:59:12 -0000
- To: "'Tex Texin'" <tex@xencraft.com>, <www-international@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-international@w3.org>, <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
Comments: [1] For Chinese: What about zh-Hans and zh-Hant? What about the IANA stuff like zh-hakka, etc.? [2] What if I just want to say "This is Turkish - but I don't know which dialect"? The list makes it seem like I *need* to choose one of the country variants. [3] Is there a big enough difference between en-GB and, say, en-FK that I should need to distinguish between the two? [4] I'm not clear about the value of the list. A list like this suggests to me that things can be looked up here without a great deal of thought. I'm not convinced that that is true. And once one applies a little thought about the most appropriate label to use, it is hardly difficult to come up with the appropriate country code. Perhaps there would be a minimal value in helping find some of the country codes you might need, but then I would organise the information slightly differently. [5] I think the choice of language code also depends on the intended usage. That is very hard to predict, of course. If one is simply applying a different font to English text embedded in an Arabic document, then I think labelling with subcodes is overkill. If labelling English text for use with a spell checker, a distinction between en-US and en-GB is typically useful because spell checkers for English tend to take that distinction into account - whether that applies for all variants of other languages is not clear to me. If dealing with a text to speech application that can distinguish accents such as en-UK-scouse, then a higher level of detail is needed than that given in the table. If dealing with Accept-Language declarations, then you must declare both en and en-UK/en-US in a browser, otherwise you won't always get the results you expected. I think the table over-simplifies the question. I'll concede that the answer to the question is very difficult to produce, but my concern is that the table seems to be offering a solution, by fiat, that is not always correct, and doesn't say that clearly enough. [6] typo: Lingala uses an upper case 'I' RI ============ Richard Ishida W3C contact info: http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ W3C Internationalization: http://www.w3.org/International/ Publication blog: http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ > -----Original Message----- > From: www-international-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tex Texin > Sent: 14 December 2004 10:43 > To: www-international@w3.org > Cc: www-international@w3.org; ietf-languages@alvestrand.no > Subject: Language Identifier List up for comments > > > http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/language-identifiers.html > > I will add caveats and expand the list to be both one level > and two level as we go along. > > I am in a busy patch, so comment now, but I won't make many > updates until the weekend. > > tex > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 12:59:13 UTC