- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:59:13 -0500
- To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
- Cc: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Mark Davis scripsit: > I don't know what this list is intended for, nor how it would be used (or > misused), nor precisely what it is supposed to measure, nor the criteria for > being on or off the list. Do the authors thinkg that someone supposed to > reject a language tag containing a region that is not on the list? Or that > localizations be limited to the list? Or include all of the list? No, no, and maybe respectively. The idea is to construct a list of plausible xx-yy language tags. We know en-gb is plausible and nv-dk is not, and obviously "plausible" is a fuzzy category. I therefore attempted to create a seed list which can be edited into a more useful one. Which languages have national variants which can be usefully distinguished, and what are those relevant national variants? > B. a set of language->region mappings that include every region where there > is a significant population base of native speakers or the language is an > official language of that country. E.g. something like: > > EN => AS AU BM BW BZ CA CM GB GH HK IE IN JM MT NG NZ PH PK PU RH SG TT UG > UM US VG VI ZA ZW > FR => BE CA CD CH CI FR FX LU MC PF RE > ... Well, that's the basis-list I tried to create, though with insufficient data (inevitably). But I see no point in retaining multiple regions for any languages which are essentially uniform across those regions. There's been a claim that Hungarian has this property. > This list would be easier to derive, although the criteria for > "significantly" would present its own challenges. Since the list is not normative, it doesn't have to be perfect. > By the way, it's missing (depending on how the criteria are applied): Excellent. My co-worker is probably sorry he undertook to maintain this list. > aa-DJ, aa-ER, aa-ET, af-ZA, am-ET, ar-IN, as-IN, az-AZ, be-BY, bg-BG, > byn-ER, ca-ES, cs-CZ, dv-MV, dz-BT, en-BE, en-HK, en-IN, en-MH, en-UM, > et-EE, eu-ES, fa-AF, fa-IR, fi-FI, fo-FO, gez-ER, gez-ET, gl-ES, gu-IN, > haw-US, he-IL, hi-IN, hy-AM, id-ID, is-IS, ja-JP, ka-GE, kk-KZ, kl-GL, > km-KH, kn-IN, kok-IN, ky-KG, lo-LA, lt-LT, lv-LV, mk-MK, ml-IN, mn-MN, > mr-IN, mt-MT, nb-NO, nn-NO, om-ET, om-KE, or-IN, pa-IN, pl-PL, ps-AF, ro-RO, > ru-RU, ru-UA, sa-IN, sh-YU, sid-ET, sk-SK, sl-SI, so-DJ, so-ET, so-KE, > so-SO, sq-AL, sr-Cyrl, sr-Cyrl-YU, sr-Latn, sr-Latn-YU, syr-SY, te-IN, > th-TH, ti-ER, ti-ET, tig-ER, tt-RU, uk-UA, uz-AF, uz-UZ, vi-VN, wal-ET, > zh-HK, zh-Hans, zh-Hans-CN, zh-Hans-SG, zh-Hant, zh-Hant-HK, zh-Hant-MO, > zh-Hant-TW, zh-MO -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness. --T. H. Huxley
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 05:00:03 UTC