Martin J. Dürst
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Jan 9 05:31:41 CET 2017
On 2017/01/07 06:31, Luc Pardon wrote:
> Agreed, but I never said that script was irrelevant. My point was
> simply that - with hindsight - it would have been better to provide
> separate fields with appropriate names, i.e. "lang=en script=Latn"
> instead of "lang=en-Latn".
No. Convincing the relevant WGs is the W3C to have the lang attribute
was (and is) quite some work. I know that first hand. I can't imagine
what it would have taken to convince these WGs to add another attribute,
or potentially even more (country, various attributes for various
> The way it it is now is equivalent to building a customer database
> with a single field called "name", and then lumping all the relevant
> infp about the customer (birth date, gender, e-mail) into that single
> "name" field, glue it all together with hyphens, and define an elaborate
> parsing algorithm to take it all apart again.
Rather than repeating this (I think clearly flawed) argument, I would
appreciate you if you could reply to my mail of Dec. 19th, 2016 (maybe
Dec. 18 your time), where I clearly refute that argument.
P.S.: I have tried to find an archive for ietf-languages at iana.org,
without success. If somebody knows about one, please tell the list. If
somebody is missing my above-mentioned mail, please tell me so that I
can resend it.
More information about the Ietf-languages