ID for language-invariant strings
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Mon Mar 17 21:15:58 CET 2008
I agree with you that
> However, for most of the examples it seems disingenuous to claim the
> data is not linguistic in nature. These are cases where we have stuff
> that clearly *is* language in that in conveys meaning, but it doesn't
> "play by the rules" that apply to material that is *in* a particular
This is different from where I have a part number, or an internal code like
"zh", where having the language value be "No linguistic content" is
> "und" seems wrong to me - it's not that we aren't able to figure out
> what language this stuff is "in".
I disagree about 'und'. I don't like a proliferation of codes where one
"und" means "undetermined". Not "cannot figure out what language this stuff
is in", not "cannot be determined", just "undetermined". That is about as
neutral as you can be.
If I have a language-neutral string like "Arial", that is to be presented to
users as the name of a font, it certainly has linguistic content. It is not
an arbitrary part number like SN305-SV, is not being presented as an
internal code; it is being presented to users as a fallback name, in case
there is no translation/transliteration into the user's language. I don't
see how it is inappropriate to say that the language value is Undetermined.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages