Frank Ellermann scripsit:
> Wrt the resources, I've no clue why e.g. (no, nb, nn) or (bs, hr, sr,
> sh) are recognized sets, while (de, gsw, nds) or similar groups aren't
> identified as related. It appears to be inconsistent. But as long as
> those sets are only identified in the registry, not in the tags, it's
> no serious problem to split, join, add, or remove sets later.
Which is why I agree that the Macrolanguage: header is a Good Thing.
The argument for extlang subtags (other than sign languages) is as a
shim between 639-2 and 639-3 and nothing else.
--
Not to perambulate John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
the corridors http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
during the hours of repose
in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
_______________________________________________
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.