From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 24 2004 - 09:12:53 EDT
> From: Mark Davis [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> You can reiterate it all you want; in practice, 3066 tags are used as
> identifiers. And for a narrow sense of locales, that is perfectly
> For a broad sense of "locale", including timezone, user's currency,
> preference, etc., it clearly would not be reasonable, and I would
> with you
> for that.
But there are a lot of people that don't know enough to recognize that
difference. So, even though a language identifier may be sufficient in
many cases to name a locale, it is IMO very unhelpful to refer to RFC
3066 tags as locale identifiers as it perpetuates and leads people into
wrong assumptions. Please help improve common understanding by not
referring to them as locale IDs.
> >ISO 639 is not unstable. It is an open code set that is being added
> over time, but I don't think that should be referred to as unstable --
> that term suggests other things.
> ISO 3066 has *demonstrated* instability,
I take it you mean ISO 3166? I did not make any claim in that regard.
> However, there is no policy documented
> *anywhere* that
> says they won't.
I'm working on it. The ISO 639/RA-JAC has acknowledged the need for
stability. Getting into the normative text of the standards takes a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 09:47:57 EDT