[loc-en-dev] Equality of base locale and LocaleServiceProvider implementation

[Naoto Sato]

So are you specifically talking about LDML extensions?  In BCP 47, it's 
one of the subtags and the BCP does not give any special semantics to it 
(because it does not know for what it would be used).  So I thought the 
fallback would be:

xx-yy-zz-ext
xx-yy-zz
xx-yy
xx

Thanks,
Naoto

Yoshito Umaoka wrote:
> Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Umaoka-san,
>>
>> I don't think this is a compatibility issue, because the existing SPI 
>> implementations should still work compatible with the locales without 
>> extensions.  Possible issue would only arise with the new locales.
>>
>> BTW, current SPI implementation invocation already involves fallback 
>> itself. i.e., say the request locale is xx_YY_foo_bar, and one SPI 
>> provider implements xx_YY, then that provider's service is used.  So 
>> adding the extension fallback is not that ugly to me. 
> Yes, I know the current fallback strategy.
> LDML extensions are designed for specifying optional behavior for a 
> locale.  Therefore, as we described in the very first proposal, 
> extensions are carried in each level.  More specifically, if a locale 
> xx-yy-zzzz-u-cu-usd is requested, below is the candidate list.
> 
> xx-yy-zzzz-u-usd
> xx-yy-u-usd
> xx-u-usd
> 
> If we need "extensionless" version inserted, it becomes
> 
> xx-yy-zzzz-u-usd
> xx-yy-zzzz
> xx-yy-u-usd
> xx-yy
> xx-u-usd
> xx
> 
> Don't you think it's somewhat ugly?
> 
> -Yoshito


-- 
Naoto Sato