Language Identifier List up for comments

[Mark Davis]

I'm completely confused; you keep switching the criteria. You used to say
'plausible', now it's "recommended for general use'. For 'general use' for
what? Localization? Text-to-Speech? Spell-checkers? Tex said in a side email
that if he couldn't buy a different dictionary two ids, they are not
different; that would eliminate quite a few distinctions in the list, but
that would be both too coarse and too fine for use in localization.

I have no idea what that this list is supposed to do now.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Cc: <www-international at w3.org>; <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 14:58
Subject: Re: Language Identifier List up for comments


> Mark Davis scripsit:
>
> > And the broader point is that whenever you are saying that xx-YY and
xx-ZZ
> > have different denotations, you *are* saying that xx differs by country.
In
> > that case you can't just say that xx-WW is "not recommended", you have
to
> > say *which* country variant it is the same as.
>
> Not necessarily, especially if you don't know.  Claiming that de-AT,
de-DE, and
> de-CH are recommended doesn't disrecommend other possibilities; in
particular,
> there is a fair amount of de-US material out there, especially old
newspapers,
> but it probably wouldn't make sense to recommend de-US for general use
today.
>
> -- 
> John Cowan                              jcowan at reutershealth.com
> http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
>                 Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
> But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
>                 Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.  --Cousin
James
>