Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
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.
I really don't understand what the big deal is concerning "zh-hakka". The only reason it is different in any way from "zh-guoyu", or for that matter "zh-xiang", is that there was a prior registration under RFC 1766 for the same language ("i-hak").
January 1999: "i-hak" is registered. December 1999: "zh-hakka" is registered. January 2000: "i-hak" is deprecated in favor of "zh-hakka". January 2001: RFC 3066 is published, replacing RFC 1766.Under RFC 1766 and 3066 there was nothing unusual about the idea of one registered tag being deprecated in favor of another registered tag. Nobody has proposed that *more* tags should be deprecated in favor of grandfathered tags -- that could not happen in the RFC 4646 era by definition.
The situation with Hakka, plain and simple, is that "i-hak" was deprecated in favor of "zh-hakka" almost seven years ago, and now both tags are grandfathered into 4646, and "zh-hakka" is about to be deprecated in favor of an ISO 639-3-based language/extlang combination. It would be preposterous to register a variant "hakka" just to satisfy a 4646 grammar rule that never existed.
-- 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.