Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
From my POV John already answered that, "orq" doesn't make much sense in an *_Internet_* registry of language subtags.
In a Registry that already has Boontling and Klingon and Yinglish?
We'll see if it's removed from the final version, and can pull the emergency break before an IETF Last Call. If all fails we could limit the bulk update to type "L", and allow individual registrations of subtags with other types under the review of the language subtag list, or a similar rule.
Bad idea. Big -1. There is a demonstrated need to tag things like Middle English and Ancient Egyptian, not to mention Esperanto (which would cause another problem, as existing constructed languages would be grandfathered in, but new ones in 639-3 would be excluded).
By the time 639-3 is published, some of the spellings may be revisedMaybe use Unicode for the descriptions, the reasons why we didn't limit the registry to Latn (or even Latin-1) should also be okay for the source standards.
At least one Description needs to match the source standard, no matter how bad we think the spellings might be.
there's no particular reason for members of this WG to be second guessing whether the content of ISO 639-3 is good enough for use in the LSR.IBTD. If it appears to list "anything" it would hurt the deployment of 4646bis. If we ask folks to download 640 KB the content has to be as good as possible.
Excluding about 500 to 600 non-"L" languages would reduce the size of the Registry by less than 8 percent, exclude some ISO-coded languages that people may need, and open us up to charges of arbitrariness.
We're operating under a "get it right at the first attempt" doctrine, we can't change our minds later and remove "orq".
I still don't know why we would want to do that. The Language Subtag Reviewer and ietf-languages list can decide that a language requested for independent registration isn't "good enough," but if it's in an ISO standard, who are they (or we) to say?
Or preserved as a comment: Subtag: xzh Description: Zhang-Zhung Comment: Ancient
I kind of see the writing on the wall here.
If later one of the Ms gets type E adding (M,E) to a description (or saying Macrolanguage, Extinct in a comment) is no problem.
If a currently non-extinct language that is widespread enough to serve as a macrolanguage goes extinct during our lifetime, it would amaze me.
Changing the 4646 syntax adding a completely new field however is IMNSHO a very bad idea. We more or less promised that that won't happen.
Where did we promise that no new fields would ever be added? This would also affect Addison's proposal to replace Suppress-Script with something new.
-- 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.