lang ID for "*" (any language)
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Jun 14 00:15:59 CEST 2012
maybe "we don't know or care"
Something like a teenager ;-)
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>wrote:
> Conceptually, there's a subtle difference between an absence of language
> qualifier, and "match any (else)" (= "*"). These two are variations of
> "generic"; "not yet determined" is clearly a distinct concept. However, it
> may be that there isn't a software resources/localization scenario in which
> these three things need to be differentiated.
> So, maybe "und" could be good enough. (If I have to choose something
> that's available now, that's the best choice.) It would amount to as kind
> of aligning with CLDR and other application scenarios that treat "und"
> slightly differently than the librarians would: they'd use it to me 'we
> don't know', whereas the software loc world is using it to mean something
> more like 'we don't care'.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: June-13-12 12:29 PM
> To: Peter Constable
> Cc: Mark Davis ☕; Gordon P. Hemsley; ietf-languages at iana.org; Doug Ewell
> Subject: Re: lang ID for "*" (any language)
> Peter Constable scripsit:
> > In software application localization, it seems pretty unlikely that
> > anyone would have resources hanging around qualified as “und” with the
> > meaning ‘some language we haven’t identified’. So, it could perhaps be
> > used for the meaning ‘no language is specified’. But if one has a need
> > to differentiate two distinct variations on that concept, then there
> > might be a problem. We’re thinking that there can be use in
> > distinguishing the concept ‘neutral (no information)’ from ‘can match
> > any request with no better matching resource (else)’.
> I'm not sure I follow you here. "Und" means that we have no information
> about language, and therefore must use a universal/generic approach
> (collate using untailored DUCET, for example). How is that different from
> "zzz" specifying that any language is a possibility here, and therefore we
> must use a universal/generic approach?
> But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master.
> Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his
> I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your
> service. --Gandalf John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages