ID for language-invariant strings
petercon at microsoft.com
Sun Mar 16 01:26:25 CET 2008
I think you know that what I have in mind is not #1 of your options. (I wouldn’t describe it as a “fallback…”, but it is a name that is linguistic.)
Whatever the tag for this scenario is, I think it should be one convention that gets recommended, with the subtag described as such in the LTRU. If that seems appropriate, then it seems to me you should convince all those promoting “zxx” to agree on “und”.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:20 AM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: ID for language-invariant strings
To me, the choice of zxx vs und depends on your goal in the particular case.
1. If the goal is to have a category for a pure 'code',non-linguistic like an ISO script code or other tags or codes that are intended to be used internal to programs, then 'zxx' would be appropriate.
2. If the goal is to have a category for a 'name' that is linguistic, but meant to be some sort of neutral 'fallback' that is comprehensible by people coming from a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds, then 'und' would be appropriate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages