i-default grandfathered tag

Markus Scherer markus.icu at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 18:35:22 CEST 2015

(was: Re: No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?)

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:01 AM, <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> Mark Davis scripsit:
> > *i-default. *I understand that it is defined in RFC 2277, but I don't
> know
> > of any software that actually uses it:
> > it is really something like "en-fallback": that is, 'we had to
> > fallback to English because we didn't have the requested
> > language'.
> Not so.  It is used where the user has had no opportunity to request a
> specific language.  It may include text in multiple languages, English
> being one of them.  If "i-default" text is English-only, it may be simpler
> English than "en" text, to maximize its intelligibility, or may even
> be semantically different, like "Get help" instead of "Login failed".

How is IMAP software expected to treat "i-default" differently from "und",
the empty string, a null value (absence of a language header)? Or even any
unknown/unsupported primary language tag?

Where does it appear? Probably not in an email header, because I would
expect an email to either have a specific language (probably the sender
agent's UI language) or just not have it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150401/c3da169e/attachment.html>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list