Sarah wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could offer any advice.
> Would it be best to use ISO639 or RFC1766 as the scheme for the
> language element?
>
> RFC1766 refers to ISO639. I was wondering which is more appropriate.
> (We wish to include a 2 character language code - en)
As ISO 639 is a subset of RFC 1766 and contains the two-character language
codes (such as "en"), it doesn't make any difference which you reference.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to support a language such as Chinese, you
would need to reference RFC 1766, in order to distinguish between the
Traditional and Simplified writing systems.
Similarly, if you wanted to distinguish between flavours of English, you
would need RFC 1766 in order to know the meanings of words such as:
pavement/sidewalk
bonnet/hood
boot/trunk
to table/to table [in this case, the American meaning is the direct
opposite of the British meaning]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th International Unicode Conference, 8-10 Apr 1998, Tokyo, www.unicode.org
7th World Wide Web Conference, 14-18 Apr 1998, Brisbane, www7.conf.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|