I know, hence the jocular tone with wink-and-smile. You are much more likely to get people's attention if you have a by-god-two-letter code than if you don't. (Today) you just can't ignore the perception that two-letter codes are somehow "legit" and three-letter codes somehow aren't... and that too many locale structures are based explicitly on the two-letter flavor.
On the other hand, I suspect that the two-letter dogma is more past-history than actual technical requirement. For example, there are real Solaris locales with names like "japanese". Java allows you to ask for/construct a locale with any pair/trio of strings (said locale doesn't have any meaning, since you can't populate the data files). And so on. Just because no one makes locales using 3-letter codes doesn't mean it isn't technically impossible. (But it doesn't mean that there is no restriction either.) Of course, I understand why a company might make a business decision not to make and support a locale for a language that doesn't qualify for a two-letter code. Lack of compelling business reasons to build, change, or test support for minority languages is more a limiter here probably than active engineering work preventing it. Addison > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (long) Making orthographies computer-ready (was *not* > Telephoning Tamil) > > > > On 07/29/2002 03:56:36 PM "Addison Phillips [wM]" wrote: > > >Nonetheless, if you glance at the "SpecialCasing" file in Unicode, you > will > >note that almost without exception the entries are locale driven. The > first > >stop in creating a new orthography (or computerizing an existing one, > perhaps > >from the days of the typewriter), for my money would probably be to get > ISO-639 > >to issue the language a 2-letter code so you can have locale (and Unicode > >character database) data tagged with it ;-). > > OK, now you've hit a hot button: The industry needs to wake up to the fact > that the requirement that a language have an ISO-639 2-letter > code before a > locale can be created is a dead end. There just aren't enough 2-letter > codes to go around, and ISO 639-2 has restrictive requirements for doling > out 2-letter codes -- it wasn't created for the benefit of locale > implementers, but for the benefit of terminologists. Luise�o and Tongva > simply are not candidates. This very issue was raised with the > relevant ISO > committee in relation to Hawaiian: a 2-letter code was requested > specifically because someone was trying to get a Unix implementation > developed and was told by the engineers that it couldn't be done > without an > ISO 2-letter code. Well, I'm pretty sure Hawaiian isn't going to get it, > because it doesn't meet the requirements for ISO 639-1. Instead of asking > for a 2-letter code, the engineers should have been looking at what it > would take to make the software support a 3-letter code (which already > exists in ISO 639-2). > > > > - Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > Peter Constable > > Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA > Tel: +1 972 708 7485 > E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >
