[technical hat on] At 12:21 08/05/27, John Cowan wrote: >Mark Davis scripsit: > >> I have been a strong proponent of RFC 4646. But I can't see any way to sell >> software developers on the ways in which extlang would require a radical >> change, eg that the Accept-Language value meaning 'Mandarin then French' >> would be >> >> - under RFC 4646: "zh, fr" >> - under this proposal: "zh-cmn, zh, fr, zh-cjy;q=0, zh-cpx;q=0, >> zh-czh;q=0, zh-czo;q=0, zh-gan;q=0, zh-hak;q=0, zh-hsn;q=0, zh-mnp;q=0, >> zh-nan;q=0, zh-wuu;q=0, zh-yue;q=0". > >Actually, to get *exactly* the same effect under RFC 4646 you'd need to >say "zh-cmn, zh, fr, zh-gan;q=0, zh-hakka;q=0, zh-min-nan;q=0, zh-wuu;q=0; >zh-xiang;q=0, zh-yue;q=0", and that's not counting the deprecated forms. Yes, and it's not covering languages that haven't been registered (e.g. zh-cjy, Jinyu Chinese, which may simply have been tagged 'zh' in lack of anything better), so it seems impossible to get *exactly* the same, anyway. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.