Jordi Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:3DA7F8A4.90407@;softcatala.org:
> For languages that really do not have cultural conventions is > better not to specify any. If you think that 'Rennaiscance > Latin' should not have a country attached (that I agree) we > should change the locale. You mean 'language (code)', not 'locale', right? > However, you should take into account that people that already > has document marked as la-IT will not be recognised as it if > we change the locale, Again, you mean language, right? There should be no problem recognizing it. All 'languagecode-contrycode' documents are 'languagecode' documents. For example all 'en-US' (US English) documents are 'en' (English) documents. The reverse is not true, though. If you change the languages codes (which I think should be done), at least 'nn-NO', 'nb-NO', and 'da-DK' should be changed. 'se' is used in both Sweden and Finland, but I'm pretty sure they use a common orthography, so 'sv-SE' can also be changed (to 'sv'). > I COMPLETELY agree that we should move from the current two > letter language into a better system. For example, we > currently cannot 'support' (put Alan's right word here :) ) > Asturian (bable) because it does not has a two letter code, > and many other examples that you point out in your bug report. RFC 3066 <URL: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt > is what other newer standards (such as XML) use, and solves this problem. It basically says: 1. Use ISO 639-1 language code if possible 2. If not, use 639-2/T (not ISO 639-2/B!) language code 3. Use ISO 3166-1 country code if necessary Se we get: nn (Norwegian Nynorsk) ast (Asturian) en-GB (UK English) -- Karl Ove Hufthammer
