Mike
<snip....>
________________________________
I am not going to rant about what the ISO and IETF have done to language
tags. However, I do think it would be useful to add some text to IPP
Everywhere to talk about the current state of affairs and some general
guidelines, namely:
[gwp] I believe it would also be useful. After investigating languages
tags over the last few days; it can be quite complex since only do you
have the ISO (639-X) tags but Microsoft has a list, XML has a list,
....................... it appears that everyone has their own list.
While most list overlap, it still looks a ""little"" messy. I believe
this discussion is important to both IPP AND to Cloud.
<... snip ...>
3. Do not support extended ISO 639 language codes since technically they
violate RFC 5656 (which requires the shortest ISO 639 code be used); for
example, "english" is not OK but "en", "en-us", "en-uk", etc. are fine
[gwp] I did not understand that ISO 639 (-3) was using "english" as a
tag but was using "eng"; I understand that the new ISO 639 tags are
three chars in length and I have not discovered extensions (eng-xxx);
yet! Note that ISO 639-3 has some 8000+ tags; so that some "secret
decoder ring".
[gwp] Question: Should PWG create it own list of language tags? The
list could be based on what is generally used by everyone else but not
all of the ones in ISO 639-3. I do not know if a language tag hierarchy
exists that would reduce the ISO 639-3 list down to more manageable list
of tags.
glen
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20120504/3a11464a/attachment-0001.html>