| 14:42 | <eemeli> | I vaguely recall some recent-ish conversation somewhere about defining or codifying the behaviour of "best fit" locale matching, but now I can't find any record of it. Am I misremembering things?
Context here is that I happened to notice that no browser seems to fall back from hak to zh, even though the latter is a macrolanguage for the former, and CLDR encodes that relationship as a languageMatch, and I'd like to figure out what the right place might be for fixing that.
|
| 17:20 | <Richard Gibson> | not that I recall, but I suspect we could defer to a lot of https://unicode.org/reports/tr35/#LanguageMatching while still allowing implementation-defined weights/thresholds/etc |
| 22:27 | <sffc> | I vaguely recall some recent-ish conversation somewhere about defining or codifying the behaviour of "best fit" locale matching, but now I can't find any record of it. Am I misremembering things?
Context here is that I happened to notice that no browser seems to fall back from hak to zh, even though the latter is a macrolanguage for the former, and CLDR encodes that relationship as a languageMatch, and I'd like to figure out what the right place might be for fixing that.
We recently discussed https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/issues/947 which is somewhat related, but I don't recall discussing codification of BestFit |