RE: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

> > The examples of locale identifiers should be consistent in
> > their use of - or _ for separators. Excepting the special
> > values $default and $neutral, I think we should mandate
> > the use of BCP 47 (ie hyphens) here.
>
> For locales names in the language_territory format "_" is
> AFAIK the standard, compare chapter 8.2 in IEEE Std 1003.1
>

For POSIX, sure. But there are other locale systems where this isn't the case or for which the separator is indeterminate. There is *no* definition of 'locale' for the Web and/or Internet: that lack is a major reason why I have been (able to put up with the abuse of being) the editor for LTRU/BCP47 or, indeed, involved in that project. Not to mention the LTLI document (www.w3.org/TR/ltli) that we're supposed to be developing in I18N Core WG. There is no particular reason to use POSIX locales on the Internet and there is some history of abusing BCP 47 for the purpose already.

Since there are many locale systems that have to establish proprietary maps to whatever public scheme we adopt anyway, I think it makes sense to embrace the best available identifier system. If we allow underscore is may actually be harmful, since it may promote the possibly-erroneous assumption that we mean POSIX locales.

(laughing) If this sounds like I'm trotting out a whole raft of things, it's because represents a revival of where I got on this bus. See for example my position paper (http://www.inter-locale.com/w3-ws-cc-position-i18n.html), my Unicode presentation (http://www.inter-locale.com/whitepaper/IUC26-A301-WS-I18N.pdf), or WSUS (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-i18n-scenarios-20040730/).

Addison

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 21:15:50 UTC