xx-XX-nnnn vs. xx-nnnn in Chinese and German
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:22:17 -0500
Torsten Bronger wrote:
> In this context: The RFC 3066 says that these tags should be interpreted
> as "one token". I understand this so that a software should
> understand the whoule tag or nothing. Is this a good approach? If
> "fallbacks" were allowed, I'd see no problem with "overtagging" texts.
But we do allow partial matches: Section 2.5 introduces the
concept of the language-range. Thus "de", considered as a range,
matches the language tags "de", "de-de", "de-at", "de-at-1996",
etc. etc. So no, depending on the application, one does not need to
understand the whole tag.
Common sense has to be applied here: an audio application told to
filter all resources that are not in "zh" may allow recorded speech
in a language unintelligible to the client, because understanding
zh-yue does not suffice to understand zh-guoyu nor vice versa.
> Language Subform Orthography
> de German ? ?
> de-DE German Germany ?
> de-AT German Austria ?
> de-DE-1996 German Germany "new"
> de-AT-1996 German Austria "new"
> de-DE-1901 German Germany "old"
> de-AT-1901 German Austria "old"
> de-1996 German ? "new"
> de-1901 German ? "new"
I agree with this schema.
John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_