I'm comparing your tags to the list of installed locales. There are 144 in
JDK 1.3 (beta) for Linux.... none of which is a form of Gaelic. This
illustrates how having a standard tag doesn't always have much
meaning: the operating systems and APIs have to support the languages too!
As an add-on to the existing code (to be finished sometime *after* IUC 17)
I'm including a lookup against the actual standard tags from the RFC.
Addison
===========================================================
Addison P. Phillips Principal Consultant
Inter-Locale LLC http://www.inter-locale.com
Los Gatos, CA, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 408.210.3569 (mobile) +1 408.904.4762 (fax)
===========================================================
Globalization Engineering & Consulting Services
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Sean O Seaghdha wrote:
> Ar 31 Aug 2000, ag 10:57 scr�obh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> f�n �bhar "RE: Same language, two locales (RE:":
>
> > I have short topic and some source code on the website trying to depict
> > why this is not a simple problem: it's easy to parse the header and hard
> > to know what it means.
> >
> > (http://www.inter-locale.com/demos/langnego.xtp)
>
> Interesting page, Addison. I was amused to see that two of my AcceptLanguages
> settings were "nameless" - ga & gd (Irish & Scots Gaelic), both of which I
> thought were standard tags. Is this a limitation of Java? Why didn't they
> just include all languages that have tags?
>
> `~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~:.,.:'^`~
> S e � n � S � a g h d h a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _______________ ,~^~`
> Ce .sig n'est pas une cig |___|___________||~~�
>
>
