Debbie Garside scripsit: > But nothing is set in stone wrt extlang :-) or is it? The decisions about which languages are macrolanguages and which languages are encompassed by them are made by 639-3/RA, and are in stone as far as we are concerned. De is not a macrolanguage and that's that. The only thing we can change is our syntax, and that is set in concrete, which is drying fast. > I missed the whole extlang debate so I don't really know all the reasons why > it was dismissed. However, from what I can see we need to facilitate > fallback matching for *some* subtags that have ISO 639-3 codes but have > also, historically, predominantly used another subtag. Maybe we should > concentrate on this aspect rather than extlang and macrolanguages > specifically. You might find that by doing so we solve all the problems. > But it needs to be done with an open mind and I don't see the need to be > restrictive to facilitating fallback *just* for macrolanguages. We could > include a "Fallback" field and devise a registration procedure to > incorporate information with regard to "known fallback relationships" that > would encompass a good deal of this. I see it working along similar lines > as suppress script (as and when info becomes available). As I say, I missed > pretty much the whole debate on this so maybe this has already been covered. It's too big a job, and "known fallback relationships" depend on too many things, not just language relatedness. -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> free-range chickens (except they have http://www.ccil.org/~cowan teeth, arms instead of wings, and dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.