> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:14:42 -0800 > From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > To: <ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <002f01c4dfbe$0d218f60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> > > Hi - > > > From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: <ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:54 PM > > Subject: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > ... > > Eliminating bilingual descriptions for the language, > > country (and UN region) codes leaves implementors > > in a quandary. > ... > > Huh? These are language TAGS. If, for some reason, some implementor > thought it made sense to display one of these in a localized form (rather > than just using them to determine what locale, etc. should be used in > rendering some text) there's no requirement that the English-language > country names that appear in the registration be used. That's not the point. The point is that under RFC 3066, the bilingual ISO language and country code lists are considered definitive. An implementor can (and has) therefore use those lists for (e.g.) providing users with menus (in either language) from which a language or country code may be selected. By declaring the ISO lists no longer definitive, and by providing only English descriptions of the codes in the proposed revised registry which would be used instead of the ISO lists, the draft proposal deprives implementors of being able to provide that functionality (viz. an official description in French of codes). > Indeed, a UI > could just as well draw a map as display a name. That would be awfully difficult for a character-based UI, and would not be useful for language codes. Nor would it be helpful for users who lack map-reading skills, but who recognize "Allemagne" when they see it. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf