Doug Ewell 2008-06-02 08.27: > [...] Given this, we could add an optional "Scope" field (or > pick a better name) to language and extlang records in the LSR > with exactly one of the following values, with no ambiguity: > > - ancient > - collective (or "collection") > - constructed > - extinct > - historic > - local > - macrolanguage > - special > Alternatively, if combining the fields is too distasteful for some, we > could add separate "Language-Type" and "Scope" [...] With a clear name, one field can be better than two. As for the name, "which/what scope" is not the first question I would ask first in order to learn which of those values that fits. Whereas "what kind (of language)" seems natural. Hence Kent's mention of "kind" has my support. Another, clear name is "Kind-of-language", unless a 3-word-name is out of scope. (If feel that "type" goes more on the linguistic features of the language -- if anyone wonders how I compare "language-type" and "kind-of-language".) -- 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.