From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 23 2004 - 19:15:06 EDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Of Philippe Verdy
> In fact if ISO 3066 is later standardized, the designation and use of
> could become its own API supporting standard identifiers.
I really don't want to get into this discussion but can't let this point
go by: RFC 3066 (not ISO) is not a specification for *locale*
identification. It is a specification for *language* identification.
There are many possible cases in which this distinction is very
> I think that the CLDR database is extremely important for software
> implementations, because it avoids some caveats that come from other
> standards such as ISO 3166 and ISO 639.
ISO 639 is not unstable. It is an open code set that is being added to
over time, but I don't think that should be referred to as unstable --
that term suggests other things.
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 23 2004 - 19:48:58 EDT