Here's what I have to say aboutthat?

[John Cowan]

Kenneth Whistler scripsit:

> Either. It's an orthogonal distinction. zh-hakka, if what
> you are talking about is the Hakka language per se. zh-Hans, if
> you are talking about written data (which happens to be
> Hakka) printed in the PRC. zh-Hant, if you are talking
> about written data (which happens to be Hakka) printed in
> Taiwan.

Although zh-hant and zh-hans are certainly correct, if the
data is known to be Hakka, I would wish to see zh-hakka-hant
and zh-hakka-hans.  Note that zh-hakka-latn is significant too.

-- 
One art / There is                      John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
No less / No more                       http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore                     -- Douglas Hofstadter