pseudo-localization variants

Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Dec 19 06:13:58 CET 2012

First off, it is entirely appropriate to tag content for its intended audience. That's certainly what Id do for localized UI assets, and is why tagging something like es-419 is useful: nobody speaks es-419, but it’s a great way to characterize the intended audience for a localized asset.

But for pseudo-localized content, the tag would definitely be describing the content, not any intended audience.


Sent from Windows Mail

From: Broome, Karen
Sent: ‎December‎ ‎18‎, ‎2012 ‎2‎:‎24‎ ‎PM
To: Mark Davis ?, Michael Everson
CC: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: RE: pseudo-localization variants

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Michael Everson <everson at<mailto:everson at>> wrote:
You're tagging the language content, not the usage scenario

I agree. Most of the made-up tags I see in the audiovisual realm are the result of people looking to identify the audience rather than the text or content itself and I think this is an important distinction. I do not think RFC 5646 should be used for audience identification – but its needs may be influenced by such data.


Karen Broome

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list