- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:14:26 +0200
- To: www-international@w3.org
- Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Peter Constable wrote:
> The meaning of zxx must be interpreted in terms of the coding standard
> of which it is a part. ISO 639 is explicitly about coding human
> languages. ?No linguistic content? in the case of zxx means ?no
> content in any human language?. If a language tag must be applied to
> something like ?ifdef DEBUG?, then the appropriate language subtag
> would be zxx.
Okay, that's very important for Mark's table, Richard's aricle, and
IMO it deserves a comment for "zxx" in the language subtag registry:
art = artificial human language, no programming language
zxx = no linguistic content wrt. human languages, but it can be a
programming language
Ignoring those real (non-fictional) alien languages for the moment.
So in a context where I can't use xml:lang="" I'd pick xml:lang="und"
if I don't know what it is, and it's likely a human language.
And I'd pick xml:lang="zxx" for a programming language if tools need
to know that it's certainly not in the otherwise inherited xml:lang.
Frank
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 19:20:28 UTC