[loc-en-dev] Equality of base locale and LocaleServiceProvider implementation
y.umaoka at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 12:33:25 PDT 2009
Naoto Sato wrote:
> 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.
If we need "extensionless" version inserted, it becomes
Don't you think it's somewhat ugly?
More information about the locale-enhancement-dev