Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:
The solution proposed by Martin Hosken seems to make quite a bit of sense to me. I only see two problems: - This would need a change to the RFC 4646 ABNF. This is serious. - Everything related to lanuguage tags is case-insensitive. The proposal below contains some case rules; these should (and can easily) be dropped.
- There are only 50 private-use code elements in ISO 15924, despite its huge capacity. We cannot "carve out" an area beyond this. Code elements starting with X and Z, for example, are already allocated.
- This adds yet another mechanism that is expected to be of limited use -- if it's not for transliterations or transcriptions, it's probably just for IPA and IPA-like systems. Section 2.2.3 says we should be using variants for something like this.
- The "priority" argument applies only if such a subtag is used with regions and if we assume nobody will use extended matching.
-1. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ RFC 4645 * UTN #14 _______________________________________________ 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.