- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:29:10 +0900
- To: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>
- CC: www-international@w3.org
Dan Chiba さんは書きました: > Practically BCP 47 is also a locale identification scheme and using > "-" for both #1 locale and #3 language is preferred, for consistency. > I think accepting both is a good idea, and more important than which > is the standard. I agree. Addison asked to decide whether we should use "-" (BCP 47 like) or "_" (LDML like) as a delimiter. We could choose "-" but make explicit that "_" might be used too if people want to be compliant to LDML. Felix > > Regards, > -Dan > > Felix Sasaki wrote: >> >> Currently we say in sec. 3.2 about the i18n:locale element >> >> Its value MUST be either a valid [LDML] locale identifier or one of >> the values "$neutral" or "$default". >> >> Dan said about "locale" information in his comment just "already >> defined". So I'd like to hear from Dan how important it is for you >> that we currently use LDML with "_" or if we could use BCP 47 with >> "-", or something else. >> >> Felix >> >> >> Frank Ellermann さんは書きました: >>> Phillips, Addison wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> For locales names in the language_territory format "_" is >>>>> AFAIK the standard, compare chapter 8.2 in IEEE Std 1003.1 >>>>> >>> >>> >>>> For POSIX, sure. >>>> >>> >>> That is what "locale" stands for. Like "language tag" is what RFC >>> 1766 and its successors say, and where we'd use "-". The >>> OP wrote: >>> >>> | Here is a list of items that we think are common: >>> | 1. Locale (already defined) >>> | 2. Timezone (already defined) >>> | 3. Language (used when UI language is different from the >>> | language deduced from the UI locale. e.g. "de" for German >>> | language, "fr-CH" for Switzerland/French locale) >>> | 4. Collation (based on the IANA collation registry) >>> [...} >>> >>> Maybe he confused the terminology, he needs "language tags" >>> in (3), and fr-CH is a "language tag". In point (4) ff. he >>> mentions some IANA registries, he could also do this in (3). >>> >>> But (1) is apparently about locales, not about the language >>> tags covered in (3). So in (1) we'd say fr_CH, not fr-CH. >>> >>> That is an important difference, locales come with various >>> settings down to currency symbols, but there are not many >>> to pick from. OTOH language tags are only about languages >>> and maybe scripts, and there are lots of valid no-nonsense >>> combinations. >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> Well, when I look at the CLDR pages they use unsurprisingly >>> "_", not "-". That's arguably two standards, POSIX and CLDR. >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Disagree, I see no reason to "abuse" the IANA language subtag >>> registry for something it is not, a locale registry, because >>> there is already a CLDR with different goals. >>>> If we allow underscore is may actually be harmful, since it >>>> may promote the possibly-erroneous assumption that we mean >>>> POSIX locales. >>>> >>> >>> Or CLDR locales. It's a rather useful difference, "i-default" is no >>> locale, and "C" is no human language. With "en_GB" I'd >>> get an odd (from my POV) date format, with "en_US" I lose the >>> metric system, get alien temperatures, and a currency backed >>> by hot air. Which isn't my plan when I say "en-GB" or "en-US". >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 17:51:23 UTC