> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Keld Jorn Simonsen [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:01 AM
> >Why don't you just use the notation in ISO/IEC 15897
> >- the cultural registry - for this, or the Open Group (UNIX)
> >convention? I think there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
> 64K by reusing resources. Hopefully by using a better locale system and
> other techniques, this can be reduced.
> The locale system is designed for so that users can implement locales with
> subtleties that go beyond the 433 ISO 639 languages as well as be platform
I took another look at ISO 15897 and it appears that locales can be
registered under almost any name. There seems to be little pattern to the
naming that I can tell.
In my case I am not only working on ICU but also building an ICU module for
the Apache web server and potentially other web servers. I makes more sense
to use RFC 1766 as part of the locale because that is usually my input info.
I am merely restructuring it to better utilize resources. I can also
convert UNIX locale ID and even LCIDs to this type of locale ID. But the
real advantage is to open expansion without registering a new ID.
The reason that they did not want editing was that they wanted to allow
users the freedom to implement unhampered locales. I think that this is
wrong. There should be a standard way for users to extend locales.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT