ID for language-invariant strings
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 22 17:01:08 CET 2008
Hi, all.I still support adding a comment to the the entries for [mul], [und], and [zxx] so that their usage is clearer to all who might wish to use them(we've also talked about broadening the [zxx] subtag--o.k . with me just so long as what it encompasses is completely clear; if it's for only programmatic language, that should be specified in a comment . . . if it's for tagging silent films, that should be specified too--Karen cited several cases where [zxx] might be problematic; so I guess we need examples and/or a broadening of the subtag). --C. E. Whitehead Tracey, Niall niall.tracey at logica.com Fri Mar 21 12:32:34 CET 2008 > Peter said that "the strings are [...] intended for programmatic > usage." To me that makes them a symbolic constant, and while > a symbolic constant may superficially take the form of a noun, it > is not a noun and cannot be altered linguistically like one, just > as in the example with x and y.[zxx] is correct if these strings are strictly programmatic. But it was my understanding that Peter wished to have some text processing done on these strings; that would be the only question for me--if these strings are to be processed in some way linguistically (that as other than as a command specifying the font), then [und] would be the correct term.But Tracy is right; it's otherwise [zxx] is the correct subtag-(somewhere we've discussed before that programming languages [for example, loop identifiers-- 'if' 'while' 'for'] were really English [not Spanish, not French]; but these are all still tagged as [zxx] because these terms are fixed commands).--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages