"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote: > So... to bring this full circle. Assuming that you'd be willing to > compromise with the no-extlangistas by going with option #2, would the > following text (replacing the text about macrolanguages in draft-13) > work for you? What would you change? Speaking not for Karen, but as an extlangista at heart, I think Addison's text is about the best we're going to get. It is certainly much better than talking about deprecating either 'zh' or 'cmn'. Realistically, we aren't going to get a perfectly clean mechanism for tagging Chinese unless we literally want to say "some kind of Chinese, I don't know or care which variety." With extlang, we had both the macro and encompassed languages represented in the same tag, so the connection was apparent to anyone who needed it; without it, somebody has to go to the Registry to find the connection. But since we're not going to get extlang, I think we should settle on this revision and move on. -- 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.