Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote: >> 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? Because it's what we already do? Also see a longer explanation in the reply to Debbie. >> 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 ... BCP 47 would indeed list it, just under the encompassed languages and not under the macrolanguages themselves. If you look for "Arabic" and find "Macrolanguage: True", you're going to have to search through the whole Registry anyway to find what it's a macrolanguage of. > 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 ...) Are the descriptions of the Macrolanguage field in 4646bis really not adequate for this? > 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. With 7,700 language subtags to choose from, simply stopping when you find the word "Arabic" is not going to be sufficient anyway. > 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. Agreed. What I'm saying is that we already provide this information in the draft-4645bis Registry, and document it in draft-4646bis, sections 3.1.9 and 4.1. I'm not convinced that this needs to be changed. -- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.