Language figures engineered never to go out of date
Most published language figures in this category are lower bounds. A bound survives every change to a product, so its presence on a page proves nothing about when anybody last looked at it. As of 2026-09-12.
| Form | Goes wrong when a language is added | Goes wrong when one is removed |
|---|---|---|
| An exact count | Yes | Yes |
| A lower bound | No | Only far past the bound |
| A named set | It becomes incomplete | It becomes wrong |
| A rule | No | No |
Inclusion rule. The forms a published language claim takes, tested against the two ways a product inventory changes. Order. Least durable form first.
1Durability and usefulness pull in opposite directions
The forms that never go wrong are the forms that say least. A rule and a lower bound both survive any change, and only one of them lets a reader work anything out.
A named set is the most fragile form and the most useful. It has to be edited when the product changes, which is exactly why its presence is evidence that somebody is maintaining it.
2A plus sign removes the last maintenance pressure
An exact count has to be corrected when the inventory moves, so somebody has to notice. A bound does not, so a sentence written three years ago reads as current today.
That is why a bound with no set behind it is close to worthless as evidence. It cannot be checked, cannot expire and cannot be compared with another vendor bound.
3Rules are durable and still checkable
A rule tying generated output to a setting never goes out of date and can still be verified by anyone who can change the setting. It is the one form that is both durable and testable, and it is rare.
Where a vendor publishes one, it is worth more than a list of the same scope, because it cannot drift out of step with the thing it depends on.
4How to read a bound
As a statement that the number is at least this, written at some unknown time, by somebody with an interest in it sounding large. Then look for documentation underneath it and read that instead.
Where documentation exists and disagrees with the bound, the documentation is the figure worth using. Where none exists, the bound is the whole claim, and it answers no question about any particular market.
An explainer about method and structure, not a count. No vendor number appears here that is not also in the register. The sourced material is on the register. Related: Three layers, How hreflang works.