- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:55:56 -0500
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>, www-international@w3.org, ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Martin Duerst scripsit:
> - I think there has been enough cross-posting. I suggest we all
> limit further posts to ietf-languages@alvestrand.no.
> Please direct followups only to that list.
If anything, I think the interest and expertise exist mainly on
www-international. From the point of view of ietf-languags, these tags
are all valid, period; "best practice" is not as central a concern
there. (I know this because my attempts to get the list reviewed by
ietf-languages have always gone nowhere, whereas this attempt is getting
lots of review.)
> - "Proposed List of 1-level Language Identifiers": Why on earth
> are two-level codes given when it says that one-level codes
> are the right thing to use? Please, please, don't confuse
> the readers with such stuff, and remove the country codes
> from the identifiers as quickly as possible.
I agree completely. In addition, I think the entire third list should
be migrated to the first list. These are simply the codes for which
regional variation on the national level is *not known* to exist (as
opposed to codes for which r.v. on the n.l. is *known not* to exist).
In pursuit of that, the introductions to the two lists should be changed
from "languages which have no other significant variations" to "languages
which are not known to vary significantly in different countries", and
likewise "languages which differ by region" should be "languages which
vary significantly in different countries".
--
Go, and never darken my towels again! John Cowan
--Rufus T. Firefly www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 12:56:34 UTC