|
Yes, [sadly] deprecated by the Unicode Consortium in Unicode 5.2, and by the IETF in RFC 6082. Nor have they be undeprecated since them (see https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch05.pdf#G115...). IMO we should have tried harder to make Unicode language tags useful and used. But it didn't happen, so they're a thing of the past. Of course, they're still there, and one could attempt to resurrect them, but most likely one would fail. Choice quotes below: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6082 > RFC 2482, "Language Tagging in Unicode Plain
> Text" [RFC2482], describes a mechanism
> for using special Unicode language tag
> characters to identify languages when needed.
> It is an idea whose time never quite came.
> It has been superseded by whole-transaction
> language identification such as the MIME
> Content-language header [RFC3282] and more
> general markup mechanisms such as those
> provided by XML. The Unicode Consortium
> has deprecated the language tag character
> facility and strongly recommends against
> its use. RFC 2482 has been moved to
> Historic status to reduce the possibility
> that Internet implementers would consider
> that tagging system an appropriate mechanism
> for identifying languages.
>
> A discussion of the status of the language tag
> characters and their applicability appears
> in Section 16.9 of The Unicode Standard
> [Unicode52].
https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch16.pdf (section 9 of that chapter, 16) > 16.9 Deprecated Tag Characters 519 The Unicode
> Standard, Version 5.2 Copyright © 1991–2009
> Unicode, Inc. for detailed recommendations
> on the use of U+FFFD as replacement for
> ill-formed sequences. See also Section 5.3,
> Unknown and Missing Characters for related
> topics. 16.9 Deprecated Tag Characters
> Deprecated Tag Characters: U+E0000–U+E007F
> The characters in this block provide a
> mechanism for language tagging in Unicode
> plain text. These characters are deprecated,
> and should not be used—particularly with any
> protocols that provide alternate means of
> language tagging. The Unicode Standard recom-
> mends the use of higher-level protocols, such as
> HTML or XML, which provide for language tagging
> via markup. See Unicode Technical Report #20,
> “Unicode in XML and Other Markup Languages.”
> The requirement for language information embedded
> in plain text data is often overstated, and
> markup or other rich text mechanisms constitute
> best current practice. See Section 5.10,
> Language Information in Plain Text for further
> discussion.
(Reformatting is mine.) |