draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, "stability", and extensions

Keld Jørn Simonsen keld at dkuug.dk
Thu Jan 6 16:56:45 CET 2005

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:31:40AM -0800, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:
> > > For the triple of
> > > language/country/script to match usefully in the general case by
> > > RFC 3066 parsers (which are unaware of script in general), the first
> > > and second subtags would have to remain language code and country
> > > code respectively.
> > If you consider realistic scenarios, this makes the wrong assumption that
> > country distinctions generally matter more to users.
> If you want to consider realistic scenarios, it is often the case that country
> information is readily available as input to matching algorithms, whereas
> script information is not. Therefore the assumption that scripts matter more
> than countries may be true but isn't relevant.

I would also favour the country code as second field, as it would be
backwards compatible with RFC 3066, and also compatible with the order
used in locales.

Best regards

Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list