LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM

Mark Davis mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Thu Apr 10 14:13:48 CEST 2003


> An even more general concern: Is there anything in az-latn-az that
> is different from az-latn (and same for Cyrillic)? In other words,
> do we need az-latn-az (and similar for uz and sp) at all?

I know of at least one prominent system that distinguishes them in practice,
so we (ICU) need to maintain that distinction.

(Note: there may or may not be actual orthographic differences in any of the
current possible 3066 codes: en-TH, en-GB, en-DE, etc. However, if someone
believes that there is such a distinction, 3066 lets him/er construct a code
for it.)

Mark
(مرقص بن داود)
________
mark.davis at jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst at w3.org>
To: <Peter_Constable at sil.org>; "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:57
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM


> At 12:57 03/04/10 -0500, Peter_Constable at sil.org wrote:
>
> >My only reservation would be with those proposed tags that have both
> >country and script elements: I don't think we ever reached consensus
> >regarding which order they should go in.
>
> An even more general concern: Is there anything in az-latn-az that
> is different from az-latn (and same for Cyrillic)? In other words,
> do we need az-latn-az (and similar for uz and sp) at all?
>
>
> >I can't recall now if Peter Edberg might have suggested this, but I'm
> >wondering about having country ID after a script ID only when the country
> >ID is specifically there to distinguish between spelling conventions.
Thus,
> >if the "AZ" in "az-Latn-AZ" were specifically intended to distinguish
> >spelling used in Azerbaijan vs. spelling used elsewhere, that would be
OK.
> >But, if the distinction is not spelling but only vocab (or other such
> >sub-language differences), then use "az-AZ-Latn". If we approach it that
> >way, then I'm guessing we'd have "zh-HK-Hans"|"zh-HK-Hant" rather than
> >"zh-Hans-HK"|"zh-Hant-HK".
>
> Are you saying that if the distinction is spelling and vocabulary,...,
> then the country should be at the end, but not if spelling is not an
> issue? This sounds weird.
>
> Also, note that there are quite a few vocabulary differences between
> simplified and traditional Chinese, although I'm not sure that all of
> them are visible in the HK variants.
>
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list