> > 2. 'gaulish' could theoretically be registered since it does not > correspond 1-to-1 with any single language subtag, but again, there > is > no practical benefit to replacing "cel-gaulish" with "'cel' plus > 'gaulish'". > Well... last time I talked to him about it, the original registrant probably would not have agreed with you. I'll have to ping Chris and see how he feels about our permanently jarring up his thunder. You or I might not appreciate a practical benefit, but others might and ietf-languages did register that unreplaced value. This is the sole example of a possible variant that we might make redundant in some kind of plausible manner. For that matter, we might make it redundant by fiat (as we did with some of the other redundant variants in 4646 times). I mean, after all, we have subtags like 'AQ' that don't provide a lot of meaning. Why not one variant? "tlh-gaulish" is probably more useful than "tlh-AQ"... :-D 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.