This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[db-wg] status and use/fulness of the geoloc: attribute - language attribute

Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] status and use/fulness of the geoloc: attribute
Next message (by thread): [db-wg] status and use/fulness of the geoloc: attribute - language attribute

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Wilfried Woeber Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Sep 19 20:09:45 CEST 2012

Wilfried Woeber wrote:

> Dear DB-Folks,
[...]
> What was your experience?

When preparing for this thread, I had a look at the specification for the
language: tag. The syntax prescribes "Valid two-letter ISO 639-1 language code"

However, this appears to be a sparsely populated list when compared to the
three-letter list. What is the difference or what is the motivation for the
restriction to the short code.

As an aside (I am ignorant with that regard), I have seen language encodings
being widely used that look like PT_PT or PT_BR. Difference or applicability?

Wilfried.

Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] status and use/fulness of the geoloc: attribute
Next message (by thread): [db-wg] status and use/fulness of the geoloc: attribute - language attribute

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]