> > So, basically, what I said is true as long as we don't create > additional Macrolanguages. Not necessarily. It still breaks existing implementations that don't know about the relationship between the subtag flavors. > > Are there likely to be additional Macrolanguages created in the future? I don't really know, but suspect that the current ISO 639-3 is not the last word in language classification. I would be a little surprised if some of the languages that appear to the ISO 639-3 RA to be atomic today didn't turn out to be macrolanguages in the future. > If > so, then you need to say when they can be registered - purely by > following > ISO 639 or some other procedure. (boggle) The draft already says this. Macrolanguage relationships in the registry follow ISO 639's classifications. > > If we take Macrolangauges as just a hack to get around what had > happened > within previous ISO 639 standards there will be no problem. Any decomposition of a language into two or more species of language will recreate the problem. Admittedly, I don't expect to see very many "major" languages (that is, ones of large commercial interest) exhibit this. But just because Quechua isn't important in commercial software doesn't make it unimportant to its speakers. So I tend to hesitate in treating "macrolanguage" as a hack. Addison _______________________________________________ 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.