I agree with you that<br><br>> However, for most of the examples it seems disingenuous to claim the<br>> data is not linguistic in nature. These are cases where we have stuff<br>> that clearly *is* language in that in conveys meaning, but it doesn't entirely<br>
> "play by the rules" that apply to material that is *in* a particular<br>> language....<br><br>This is different from where I have a part number, or an internal code
like "zh", where having the language value be "No linguistic content"
is perfectly fine.<br>
<br><br>> "und" seems wrong to me - it's not that we aren't able to figure out<br>> what language this stuff is "in".<br><br>I disagree about 'und'. I don't like a proliferation of codes where one works fine.<br>
<br><br>Type: language<br>Subtag: und<br>Description: Undetermined<br>Added: 2005-10-16<br><br>"und" means "undetermined". Not "cannot figure out what language this stuff is in", not "cannot be determined", just "undetermined". That is about as neutral as you can be.<br>
<br>If I have a language-neutral string like "Arial", that is to be presented to users as the name of a font, it certainly has linguistic content. It is not an arbitrary part number like SN305-SV, is not being presented as an internal code; it is being presented to users as a fallback name, in case there is no translation/transliteration into the user's language. I don't see how it is
inappropriate to say that the language value is Undetermined.<br><br>Mark<br>