- From: ¸³ºÖ¿³ Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:37:56 +0800
- To: Gunnar Bittersmann <gunnar@bittersmann.de>
- Cc: www International <www-international@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
> I¡¦m as confused as Jens. No need for JP and keeping language tags as short as possible means to prefer *:lang(ja) over *:lang(ja-jp). It would be better, Japanese is normalize everywhere. > And wouldn¡¦t an example using *:lang(zh-Hant) be more appropriate than *:lang(zh-tw)? But I don't agree replace zh-tw by zh-Hant, because zh-Hant is used in Hongkong and Taiwan. There are some glyphs come from Cantonese just used on Hongkong's context, Not all Traditional Chinese font contains those glyphs. So zh-tw and zh-hk would be better for usage. Gunnar Bittersmann <gunnar@bittersmann.de> ©ó 2013/9/13 ¤U¤È4:15 ¼g¹D¡G > > *:lang(ja-jp) would be better as *:lang(ja) - there is no need for the > > jp, and the general recommendation is to keep the language tag as short > > as possible. > > > > Gunnar > >
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2013 04:38:33 UTC