Re: CLDR locales: Filipino (fil/ph?) Pilipino/Tagalog (tl/tlg)

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 13:33:10 CST

  • Next message: Addison Phillips [wM]: "RE: CLDR locales: Filipino (fil/ph?) Pilipino/Tagalog (tl/tlg)"

    From: "Philippe Verdy" <>
    > 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