Addison Phillips wrote: > one can match language tags "at a glance". > I think that is a Good Thing. Where that works, sure. The hypothetical Ryukyu "rkn" was an attempt to create a worst case. > 1. Any ISO 639-3 code that is a "sublanguage" of an existing, > non-deprecated language subtag (and preferably an > acknowledged macrolanguage) is made an extlang. > 2. All others are language subtags. > 3. Once a language subtag, always a language subtag. Once an > extlang, always an extlang. +3 so far. > 4. If a new macro-language code is introduced that would > encompass existing codes, it is put into the registry as a > deprecated language subtag. That solves the hypothetical "rkn" mess. > zh-cmn (right) > cmn (wrong) > rkn (right, deprecated) > ams (right) > rkn-ams (wrong) Good, I arrived at "rkn-ams (right, deprecated)", but "wrong" is probably better. At this point you've lost the info that "ams" is related to "exa" based on a (deprecated) "rkn-exa". On the other hand you've no zoo of deprecated synonyms. The lost info could be kept as comment in "rkn", but comments are not meant to be machine-readable meta-data. > Another way of saying this is that a code is either a > language subtag or an extlang at birth and this can never > change. Noted, I hope that makes it into the first draft. > Incidentally, why are we discussing this here and not on the > LTRU list? Because nobody bothered to change the subject... I don't like to change the subject and the list simultaneously, it could break threading where the references header field is lost. Frank _______________________________________________ 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.