Now for the issues themselves. There are already a couple of "redundant" tags for Swiss German: de-CH-1901 and de-CH-1996. However, if we add "gsw" and it becomes the preferred subtag for Swiss German, then those de-CH tags are no longer "redundant" in the normal sense of that word. Should we then add a Preferred-Value (or a See-Also) to those "redundant" entries? Rules 8 and 10 in Section 3.4 of the registry ID appear to talk specifically about language subtags, but I didn't immediately notice any discussion of language-COUNTRY combos like de-CH. I'm probably missing something -- let me know.
If it is true that Switzerland's orthography years were the same as Germany's (1901 and 1996), then should the entry for the "variant" with the subtag "1901" also have the prefix "gsw" (and likewise for 1996)?
If German has a Suppress-Script of Latn, shouldn't "gsw" also have that?On the other hand, if this "gsw" case raises a number of issues in the IDs, we may want to delay them to fix them (for new rules that would cover this sort of case). Not that I want to be the person blamed for the delay of these RFCs!
Erik Doug Ewell wrote:
Håvard Hjulstad <HHj at standard dot no> wrote on ietf-languages:The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) has approved the following: Alpha-3 identifier in ISO 639-2: gsw (No alpha-2 identifier has been assigned) English name: Swiss German; Alemanic French name: alémanique Indigenous name: SchwyzerdütschThis implies that the following primary language subtag will need to be added to the initial registry:Type: language Subtag: gsw Description: Swiss German Description: Alemanic Added: 2005-11-04I am working with the co-chairs to determine the best way to add this to draft-ietf-ltru-initial-06.
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.