Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
What I was looking for was: http://www.sil.org/iso639%2D3/macrolanguages.asp And: http://www.sil.org/iso639%2D3/scope.asp#MIdeally, extended language subtags would be restricted to the list in the first link above and 4646bis would reflect that fact. I don't want to construct that list from the registry: I would prefer something much more cut-and-dried, i.e. getting it from ISO 639-3.
Just in case that was confusing to anyone: Extended language subtags are for languages encompassed by macrolanguages, not for the macrolanguages themselves. I know Addison knows that.
Now, all that said, I think it would be useful to include a "type" field for "collective" languages (with the warnings about their suitability proposed by John) and for "macro" languages (defining what can be used as a prefix value in an extlang).
In his reply, Peter is of course correct that "Type" and "Scope" are two different things in 639-3. But if it would help anyone, they could be combined into a single informational field in the Registry. All macrolanguages ("M") are living languages ("L"), so there would be no need for compound Language-Type values glued together by commas.
If we want to discourage tag producers from using subtags based on "collective codes," but don't want to indicate them in the Registry, I hope we have some alternative plan. Looking for the word "languages" or "(Other)" in the Description does not tell the whole story.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ 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.