RE: Language Identifier List up for comments

Which should be noted is the polar opposite of most resource loading systems in most operating systems (i.e. in Java/Windows/etc. you specify the *most* specific value and may get something less specific whereas in RFC 3066 you specify the *least* specific you'll accept and may get something more specific).

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-international-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 2004年12月15日 18:39
> To: www-international@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Language Identifier List up for comments
> 
> 
> 
> > From: www-international-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of A. Vine
> 
> > It's true, though the more specific, the less of a chance of matching.
> > It might be nice to know that the German if spoken through a
> synthesizer
> > is that of the Lauterbach dialect, but if the tag is
> "de-DE-lauterbach"
> > then even though the text is perfectly uderstandable in its written
> form
> > to many other German readers, it won't match someone's "de-DE"
> language
> > preference and so will not be shown.
> 
> That is not how the language-range in HTTP works. If a user makes a
> specific request (e.g. de-DE-lauterbach) but the available content has a
> less-specific tag (de-DE), there will not be a match. If it's the other
> way around, though -- user makes a request (de-DE) and the available
> content is more specific (de-DE-lauterbach), then there *will* be a
> match.
> 
> (Specific implementations may or may not work that way.)
> 
> 
> Peter Constable
>

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 04:26:41 UTC