- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:26:20 +0100
- To: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, acunningham@slv.vic.gov.au
On Saturday, 27 July 2013 at 00:28, Andrew Cunningham wrote: > Talking about writing systems becomes more problematic.. > Since you are talking about 2 to 4 BCP language tags at least > Language > Country > Script > Variant > I will check the apps that we have in the FxOS marketplace, but I don't think any have ever gone beyond language-country. But yeah, idea is to keep it simple. > > Some languages use more that on script which would need to be identified, if the language entry in IANA registry doesn't have a suppress-script (which interestingly is how windows8 has started to implement languages - don't you love undocumented features) > :) > Even with same language and script there can be variant orthographies > Sure. > If you want an extensible system that could handle any language, http header accept language as it is currently implemented and used is the wrong place to start. > That's good feedback. I guess I'm wondering what the ideal is to cover the 80% use case? Like I said, the content that is motivating Mozilla to add this API rarely, if ever, get's localized beyond two sub tags (that's not to say that it shouldn't, but that's just what we are seeing so far - though the good news is that developers are localizing content, which is great!). I'm going to check all the content that we have got so far just to make sure.
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 18:26:51 UTC