From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 13:33:10 CST
From: "Philippe Verdy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Now comes the problem of tagging localized resources for the Philipines:
> can we use "ph" today? or must we use only "fil" or "fil-PH"?
I have just been told by a user in the Philipinins that the theorical
distinction between Tagalog and Filipinos is rarely observed, even by users
in the native Tagalog community: nobody seems to speak today a "pure"
Tagalog language, so most computer applications simply do not make the
This means that for locale designation in applications, they almost always
refer to the "Filipinos" language as a synonym of Tagalog, and they most
often don't use the new "fil" code of ISO-639-2 assigned to Filipinos (and
incorrectly unified to Pilipinos for terminologic purpose).
So it seems that Tagalog should be coded this way in ISO-639 (or more
exactly applications should behave as if this was coded like this) :
- English name: Tagalog (modern); alias Filipinos, Pilipinos
- French name: Tagalog (modern); alias Philippin
- 2-letter code in ISO-639-1: tl
- 3-letter code in ISO-639-2 (B/T): tlg/fil
i.e. the "fil" code should be considered as the terminologic code, and "tlg"
used for Bibliographic classification, and "tl" used in locale data
(assuming the Latin script)...
A best-match locale code will then be "tl" or "tl-PH". Historic "pure"
Tagalog texts written with the Tagalog script should be tagged with the
locale identifiers "tl-Tglg" or "tl-PH-Tglg" (by adding the capitalized
4-letter ISO15924 script code).
Are there other opinions about this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 27 2004 - 13:45:59 CST