Subject: [Ltru] Re: Updated article: Two-letter or three-letter language codes

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:20:56 -0700

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

>> As a general process I always try to accept ill-formed input, but 
>> emit corrected output (since you pretty much have to grandfather all 
>> past formats).
>
> In the case of language tags, this is a very good policy for 
> interfaces between other systems and the Internet protocols and 
> formats that use RFC 4646 language tags.

Martin is right in the sense that a process can decide to accept "eng" 
or "English" or something else, and convert it to "en".  This is not the 
same, though, as interpreting BCP 47 (RFC 4646) as permitting "eng" or 
"English" as a valid synonym for "en".

All applications that claim conformance to BCP 47 must use the Language 
Subtag Registry as the complete catalog of non-private-use subtags. 
Thinking in terms of "2-letter ISO codes" and "3-letter ISO codes" is 
fine for applications that do not claim conformance to BCP 47.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru