[Ltru] Re: zh-hakka

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

>>> For ALL prefixes, for ALL Suppress-Scripts, and for ALL
>>> Preferred-Values anywhere in the registry ALL subtags of
>>> the corresponding tags (or script subtags in the case of
>>> Suppress-Script) are registered.

JFTR, I forgot to mention ALL redundant tags.

>> is it just a coincidence?
> It's just a coincidence.

Not really, a Prefix must consist of registered subtags, and
a Suppress-script must be a registered script subtag.  For a
Redundant tag the name "redundant" suggests that it contains
only registered subtags.

The remaining wiggle room is a Preferred-Value, and Addison
listed:  For script + region + variant it must be a registered
subtag of the same type.  Ditto for language under 4646 rules,
that will be extended to include extlang, but it still must be
a registered language or extlang.

That limits potential "coincidences" to the Preferred-Value of
redundant or grandfathered.  Because the grandfathered zoo is
frozen you'll find that i-hak with Preferred-Value zh-hakka is
the only case.

It's highly unlikely (and no mere coincidence) that i-default,
i-enochian, or i-mingo get a Preferred-Value pointing into the
grandfathered tags.  I daresay impossible.  Also for all other
"not yet" (state 4645bis-00pre) deprecated grandfathered tags.

And I also don't see any remaining redundant tags getting a new
Preferred-Value pointing into the grandfathered tags.  Based
on that the hakka-"coincidence" turns out to be a singularity.

In theory i-default qualifies as the target of a no nonsense
Preferred-Value, but in practise the 4646 rules don't allow it.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru