RE: [Ltru] John Cowan throws in the towel on extlangs

Apologies in advance if this is a non-sequiteur to this particular thread,
but is there provision for new macrolanguages. A while back there was a
suggestion that we know them all, but I could suggest other possibilities
such as Runyakitara (aready mentioned), Oshiwambo, possible new mix for
Manding languages. This may be ISO 639 territory, but also would relate to
use of tags.

Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: John Cowan; ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] John Cowan throws in the towel on extlangs
> 
> > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> 
> > IMO we should strongly consider adding a new informative (and
> mutable)
> > "Fallback" header in the registry which will inform people about
> > problematic cases like "cmn" and "arb" (Standard Arabic), instructing
> > them which language subtag to fall back to in cases of match failure.
> > These will have to be cherry-picked, like Suppress-Script, but Peter
> > Constable has estimated that there are no more than 15 such cases
> > actually in wide use.  For some macrolanguages, there is no dominant
> > variety, and no special consideration is as yet required; if new
> > dominant varieties come to exist in future, new Fallback headers can
> > be added.
> > RFC 4647bis can then be revised to explain how this header MAY be
> used
> > to enhance matching.
> 
> I've taken a cut at analyzing macrolanguages in terms of two key
> factors: widespread exposure in ICT (based on support in OSes), and
> whether there is a dominant language. (Of course, "dominant" varies on
> a continuum.)
> 
> I ended up with 16 considered to have wide exposure. File is attached.
> 
> 
> Peter

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru