RFC3066 bis: use of local codes

[Mark Davis]

No, the purpose is precisely to allow those codes, actually in preference to
x-anythinggoes, where they can be used. At least if the private use ISO codes
are used, one can still have a breakdown in terms of language/script/region, and
only the necessary ones are to be private use. Thus en-Qdej is more informative
than x-qwertyuiop.

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Fri, 2003 Dec 05 16:39
Subject: RFC3066 bis: use of local codes


The draft says that re the "local" (private-use) codes in ISO 639-2,
"These codes should be used for non-registered language subtags."

Similarly, re 15924 it says, " ISO 15924 reserves the codes Qaaa-Qtzz
for private use values. These codes should be used for non-registered
script values."

These statements are not at all clear to me. It sounds like people have
license to use, say,

xml:lang="qka"
xml:lang="qka-Qdej"
xml:lang="en-Qdej"

It also sounds like they should use things like this rather than
"x-qka", "x-qka-Qdej" etc. But I'm not sure if it's meaning that or not.
It's also not clear whether "en-Qdej" is allowable or not.

Initially, I thought there was a typo, and that was had been intended
was to say that these should not be used. I think we could avoid some
confusion and headaches if we did not allow their use, with the
exception that anything is allowed to follow a primary subtag of "x-".



Peter

Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages