Kent Karlsson 2008-06-01 13.42: > Doug Ewell wrote: >> I know some WG members will argue that collection codes are Evil, in >> which case I would respond that perhaps we need to think beyond Web >> servers and spell-checkers. [...] +1 for including collection codes. > [...] I also don't mind making collection/family codes inclusive, > i.e. exclude the "(other)", as Peter mentioned. +1 for inclusive collection/family codes > But I would like some firmer recording in the LSR of the fact that a > code is a collection/family code (rather than relying on "languages" > or "(family)" being part of the name, or just referring back to 639-5). > Something like "Type: language collection" or similar. Pushing this a > bit, macrolanguages should similarly be explicitly recorded as such > (rather than just implicitly), by something like "Type: macrolanguage" > instead of just "Type: language". I know there is a way of inferring > this information, but it is better to be explicit, and not need to > infer that information or refer back to the -3 registry. IIUC, this > would leave "Type: language" for individual languages only. +1 one for "Type: macrolanguage" and "Type: language collection". Being explicist is good. For example, the "no" code cannot be used for spell-checking unless you assume that it means either "nn" or "nb". > I'm not suggesting any formal restrictions on the use of language > collection/family codes, And not on macrolanguage codes either. > beyond the informal warning we have already. > I'm sure some of the (non-new) collection codes have been used to > language tag documents in languages not covered by the LSR yet > (but will be, once LTRU II finishes...) with an individual language > code. +1 for not having any formal restrictions. -- 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.