>From what I'm reading on the Web -- I'm no expert in this area -- it
appears that Brythonic includes Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. Gaulish seems
to be a more specific tag.
ISO 639-3 offers:
Identifier: xcg
Name: Cisalpine Gaulish
Identifier: xtg
Name: Transalpine Gaulish
Would either of these suffice? (Hmm. And would extlang be useful here
too?)
"oeddict" -- I might prefer "oxford" as the tag if there's not another
linguistic use for that term.
"zhmin" -- Seeing the discussion this week on this list, I'd suggest that
any tag name using "zh" is asking for a semantic mess. *In practice*, this
would be understood as Mandarin-Hokkien under current assumptions, which
doesn't make much sense. If this is not the same as "nan", would a name
like "hokkien" be preferable?
Regards,
Karen Broome
Sent by: ltru-bounces at ietf.org05/07/2008 03:35 PM
Re: [Ltru] Preferred Values for Irregular Tags
BTW:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/i-enochian
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/i-mingo
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/zh-min
http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/cel-gaulish
For zh-min, nan might be the best choice:
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: zh-min
Description: Min, Fuzhou, Hokkien, Amoy, or Taiwanese
Added: 1999-12-18
Deprecated: 2029-09-09
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: zh-min-nan
Description: Minnan, Hokkien, Amoy, Taiwanese, Southern Min, Southern
Fujian, Hoklo, Southern Fukien, Ho-lo
Added: 2001-03-26
Preferred-Value: nan
Deprecated: 2029-09-09
cel-gaulish
it looks like this was intended to be what the ethnologue calls Brythonic:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=92090
So we would need a new code, or ask ISO to add one. (Having codes for the
families in the Ethnologue would be pretty handy; many exist, but many
don't.)
Mark
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Mark Davis <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
wrote:
> With RFC4645bis, there are only a handful of cases (listed below) where
one cannot canonicalize on input and then not ever have to deal with
irregular tags. That would allow us to only have to deal with irregular
codes on input, and then never again have to handle them -- which would be
a very useful simplification.
>
> I was thinking of proposing to the languages group that we make the
following registrations:
>
>
> languages: gaulish, default, enochian, mingo, and zhmin
> variant: oeddict
>
> I wanted to run this by this group first, especially to see if there is
nothing on the horizon in 639 that we could use instead of any in the
first group (since that would of course be preferable), and if anyone else
had any thoughts on the matter.
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: cel-gaulish
> Description: Gaulish
> Added: 2001-05-25
> %%
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: en-GB-oed
> Description: English, Oxford English Dictionary spelling
> Added: 2003-07-09
> %%
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: i-default
> Description: Default Language
> Added: 1998-03-10
> %%
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: i-enochian
> Description: Enochian
> Added: 2002-07-03
> %%
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: i-mingo
> Description: Mingo
> Added: 1997-09-19
> %%
>
> %%
> Type: grandfathered
> Tag: zh-min
> Description: Min, Fuzhou, Hokkien, Amoy, or Taiwanese
> Added: 1999-12-18
> Deprecated: 2029-09-09
> %%
>
> --
> Mark
--
Mark _______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ 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.