[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]
duerst at w3.org
Wed Apr 9 15:57:32 CEST 2003
At 10:08 03/04/09 -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
>There is a misunderstanding here. However one defines locales, one needs a
>language ID to be useful. For example, someone might define a locale to
>written language ID
>country ID of residence
>country ID of citizenship
>country ID of bank account
>[This is actually the defintion needed by a customer I was talking to just
This is a good example, in that it shows that different applications
have very differing needs. I never would want a generally used
locale definition to include the above items, because in particular
citizenship and bank account have clear privacy implications.
So I think we need to make it easier to write good applications,
and continuing to wonder what a 'locale' might not be the best
way to do that.
>As a part of that definition, one needs an unambiguous specification of
Can you define what you mean by 'unambiguous'?
>ISO-639 fails miserably as unambiguous specification of written language. I
>realize that the proponents of ISO-639 don't even want it to apply to
>written language. But for information technology, distinguishing written
>language is the 999% case; merely spoken language is mostly unproductive.
>RFC 3066 is somewhat better, but has the problems as discussed on this list.
>As to the issue of whether RFC 3066bis should include SIL codes directly or
>not, technically I don't much care. I suspect it would be slightly cleaner
>if 3066bis just included some ISO standard.
>However, the need for the addition of a script subtag to 3066bis is clear
>and present. And if 3066bis does not address that issue *very* soon,
PLEASE!!! Stop complaining, start acting. Please submit the
necessary registrations for the 10 or 20 combinations that you
need, and follow through with these registrations.
More information about the Ietf-languages