pseudo-localization variants

Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Dec 19 18:01:32 CET 2012

I mentioned that MS uses the ISO 639 private use (“local code”) ‘qps’. There is nothing in BCP 47 that prevents such a private use subtag from being used in combination with a variant subtag.

There is no specific proposal yet. I raised the discussion with a view to a possible proposal. I think there should be some way to denote pseudo-loc content in a valid BCP 47 tag. Currently, MS is using tags such as “qps-ploc” pr “qps-plocm”, neither of which are valid, but which can leak into the wild. (E.g., a user can add one of these in their language profile in Windows 8 and then create documents in which these might get used, or if they browse on the web they would be included in an http accept-language header.)


From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:52 AM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: pseudo-localization variants

There are documented use cases for making pseudo translated text in e.g. translation memory files. It's not a real language in that it's something one speaks--like say Klingon or Esperanto. But it is recognizably language material. Actually it is usually a form of English, with spelling irregularities. Or transliterated somehow.

So what's the proposal here?

I would again suggest using the art subtag as a base for a variant. Or this would maybe be the one 5-letter primary subtag we could register. A tag like pseudo-Cyrl might be useful. Conversely, my other use case (I need real locales to test functionality) suggests a general purpose variant: ja-JP-pseudo conveys what is going on in a different way.

IIRC Peter's original suggestion was related to a private use sub tag, which I don't think is allowed?

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Sent from my Kindle Fire HD

Michael Everson <everson at<mailto:everson at>> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2012, at 05:35, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at<mailto:mark at>> wrote:

> I agree with Peter that it is not out of scope for BCP47, and is not covered by the existing tags, and would be useful to have (probably more useful than most of the existing variant tags).

Defined in what way? Please be explicit.

For instance, one cannot go to and buy an English-Pseudo dictionary. One can buy a Volapük-German dictionary, on the other hand.

Michael Everson *

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at<mailto:Ietf-languages at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list