[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

Martin Duerst 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
>timezone ID
>[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
>*written* language.

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.

Regards,    Martin.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list