Glen,
On May 4, 2012, at 9:56 AM, "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com> wrote:
> ...
> 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”.
My example wasn't necessarily the best; will update accordingly.
As for the decoder ring, I'm fine keeping the list short to those people are actually using widely (which keeps us to around 50 or so...)
> [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.
I would not want the PWG to tackle defining its own registry - that way lies madness... :)
IANA already has a registry that we can (and should) use. However I am not opposed to providing an example list of common language tags and aliases, with a pointer to the IANA registry as the definitive source. Ideally this should be part of an implementer's guide, but since I don't think we want to update RFC 3196 it can go in a non-normative appendix that references RFC 3196 as part of IPP Everywhere.
__________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
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/e960b8fb/attachment-0001.html>