Phillips, Addison wrote: > > I generally agree with the idea that having some of this > ancillary information in the registry would be useful. > However, the 'Type' field isn't the way to do this. The > 'Type' field indicates what kind of subtag it is. > > Instead, I would suggest that we include some more > meta-information in specific fields in the registry. For > example, we could have a 'Source' field to indicate where a > record came from and an Attribute field for derived > attributes. Here's what our record collection might contain: > > Type: language | extlang | script | region | variant | grandfathered | redundant Well, I still hope that the extlang stuff is not really coming back... > Subtag | Tag: <value> > Added: <date> > Deprecated: <date> > Prefix: <value> > Suppress-Script: <value> > Description: <text> > Source: ISO639-1 | ISO639-2 | ISO639-3 | ISO639-5 | ISO3166-1 | ISO15924 | registration ISO639-2 would be retargeted (per "Type: language" subtag) as either ISO639-3 or ISO639-5 now, would they not? Given that, IIUC, the codes in ISO 639-2 by necessity are also registered as ISO 639-3 or ISO 639-5 codes, and LTRU II are retargeting from ISO 639-2 to ISO 639-3 and (hopefully also) ISO 639-5. UNM49 (or similar "source code") should be there too, should it not? > Attribute: macrolanguage | collection | ... Maybe "Kind: individual | macrolanguage | collection" (required for "Type: language", not allowed for other "Type"s. I would not recommend anything similar for, say, region codes. Nit: And move it up to just after "Type". /kent k _______________________________________________ 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.