doug at ewellic.org
Fri Sep 11 15:13:23 CEST 2009
Felix Sasaki <felix dot sasaki at fh dash potsdam dot de> wrote:
>> The problem with this is that it applies to XLIFF (XML Localization
>> Interchange File Format) only. A language tag extension, in contrast,
>> can be used anywhere language tags can already be used.
> Yes, but in XLIFF it is a common to store such information in a
> separate field, that is not as part of a language identifier (which
> are used as well in XLIFF, via xml:lang). Having a language identifier
> with similar information would create confusion.
The same argument was made against script subtags during the development
of RFC 4646.
> I did not propose the table as an input for variant subtags. I rather
> think that people who mostly need the use case discussed in this
> thread (the localization industry) lalready have the means the need -
> they just do not rely on language tags for the purpose of identifying
> machine translated content.
In fact, the thread started with someone saying they did not have a
means to identify machine-translated content, and were looking to
language tags to fill the void.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages