> From: Dave Singer [mailto:singer@xxxxxxxxx] > Sorry, I should have gone on to conclude: the important aspect of > sub-tags is that their nature and purpose be identifiable and > explained (e.g. that this is a country code), and that we retain > compatibility with previous specifications. Ah! Then the proposed draft ensures that the nature of subtags are always identifiable, which RFC 3066 (as I mentioned earlier) fails to do. And the draft retains compatibility with previous specifications using an assumption (thoroughly discussed and concluded on the IETF-languages list a year ago) that, in case of left-prefix matching processes, script distinctions are generally far more important that country distinctions. > I don't believe that simple > truncation is a necessarily useful operation in all circumstances, I don't think anyone would dispute that. > and it probably should not be in the spec. at all. For example, I'd > say that we should retain the 3066 ordering of language-country and > therefore script, if needed, comes later. However, my typesetting > subsystem doesn't care a jot about language or country, it just needs > to find the script code ('can I render this script'?). Here I disagree. For other purposes, I think it's very clear that the only time that choice of order matters is with matching algorithms that use simple truncation, and for the most common implementations, which use left-prefix truncation, the order lang-script-country will be far more useful in the long run precisely because script distinctions are generally far more important in matching than country distinctions. I don't know of any case in which a tag might be used that contained all three subtags but in which the country distinction generally matters more than the script distinction. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf