John Cowan wrote: >> Apparently some including John, Peter, and me feel that it's relevant, >> but we still have to figure out how to do it. > I'm not sure what this means. We do know how to do scopes and types; > the issue is whether we want to. It means that this could be noted in a new field, or as " (M)" or " (H)" etc. at the end of the description, or verbose as " (historic)", or even in a comment - but normally we reserve comments for any info that's not a part of the source. > We stabilized the syntax of language tags. Yes. > We stabilized the record-jar syntax. One hopes. > We stabilized certain fields (and not others). Yes. > We did not stabilize the set of fields as a whole. We also didn't mention that new fields might be introduced later. For the purpose mentioned by Peter - determine if "foo" is the subtag for language "bar", where "ancient" helps to decide that it's not - the "ancient" info is relevant, not how it appears in a "bar" record. For the purpose mentioned by Addison - determine if subtag "foo" is a macrolanguage - it's the info "macrolanguage", not how it appears. Checking if subtag "foo" is the target of an extlang-prefix is not exactly straight forward (but an algorithmic solution). And for the purpose mentioned by me - check if "foo" is a pure 639-3 subtag - we have no proposal based alone on the LSR. Frank _______________________________________________ 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.