[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] odf 1.1 dc:language value (unchanged as yet for 1.2)
I also dislike the word "similar" in standards. Not identical? What is the difference? If the DIS for ODF 1.2 contains this word in usual paragraphs, I will make sure that Japan will complain about it. > According to ODF 3.1.15: > > "The <dc:language> element specifies the default language of the document. > > The manner in which the language is represented is similar to the language > tag described in [RFC3066]. It consists of a two or three letter Language > Code taken from the ISO 639 standard optionally followed by a hyphen (-) > and a two-letter Country Code taken from the ISO 3166 standard." The second sentence does not allow optional subtags. Such subtags are allowed in RFC 3066. > The Dublin Core Usage Guide, 4.15 states: > > "Recommended best practice for the values of the Language element is > defined by RFC 3066 [RFC 3066, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ rfc3066.txt] > which, in conjunction with ISO 639 [ISO 639, http://www.oasis- > open.org/cover/iso639a.html]), defines two- and three-letter primary > language tags with optional subtags. Examples include "en" or "eng" for > English, "akk" for Akkadian, and "en-GB" for English used in the United > Kingdom." This also allow optional subtags. Does ODF intentionally disallow subtags? Is the the reason of the word "similar"? -- MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]