> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org] > 3) zh-cmn is being deprecated in favor of cmn. > > 4) People should think twice about using cmn rather than plain zh. I mentioned on 12/8 that there are other cases that also need consideration. Here's what I wrote then: <quote> There is a deeper problem we should be considering: when does it make sense for people to use the macro-language or the individual-language IDs in cases like Swahili, Malay, etc.? In fact, when does it make sense to use which in cases for any macrolanguage ID in widespread use when there is a dominant encompassed language? This is an issue in these cases: ar/ara vs. arb (Arabic) kok vs. Knn (Konkani) ms/msa vs. mly (Malay) sw/swa vs. swh (Swahili) uz/uzb vs. uzn (Uzbek) zh/zho vs. cmn (Chinese) These are all the cases in category 2 of 'Macrolanguage analysis.txt' which I sent as an attachment on 11/29. I didn't include Dogri as I had no indication that doi is widely used, but we can certainly include it for consideration of this issue. </quote> >From what you say in (4), it seems your suggestion would be that people should think twice about using the individual-language ID rather than the macrolanguage ID in *any* of these cases. Peter _______________________________________________ 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.