Doug Ewell 2008-05-10 07.17: > Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote: > > > ... However, you first need to identify that 'ar' itself is a > > Macrolanguage then you can do a match on: Macrolanguage field = 'ar;1' > > or 'ar'. > > > > Therefore, the record for 'ar' needs to be updated as follows: > > > > %% > > Type: language > > Subtag: ar > > Description: Arabic > > Added: 2005-10-16 > > Suppress-Script: Arab > > Macrolanguage: True > > %% > > Why don't we just use the strategy we already have: if at least one > language subtag "yyy" exists with a Macrolanguage field of "xxx", then > "xxx" is a macrolanguage. Why would that be any better? > This is a bit more work for us programmer > types, since it means we have to look through 7,768 language subtags, > but that's our problem; everyone else can just use the > Registry-searching engines we build. > If BCP47 list doesn't list it, then one can always create alternative lists ... Programmer types can develope search tools anyhow. Programmer types outside IETF needs hooks and help as well, for developing their own tools. (Just look at Apache ...) There allready is at least one search tool. But I thought the goal was to have only one place to look at. The search tools should also not appear to give more info than the list. If so, then the searh tool can be intrepreted as "interpretative". Many will just look for Arab, and settle when they find "ar". If the goal is to get users to always use as spesific tags as needed/possible, then this is not good enough. If the field Macrolanguage answers "true", then at least there exist a insentive to try to understand what that as is. Mentioning that it is a macrolanguage is neutral info. Developers/Users must then find out what to do with it - if it can be used for fallback, or whatever. -- leif halvard silli _______________________________________________ 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.