[Ltru] "extlangish" (was: Re: draft updated)

["Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>]

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> * for 'ar' we are about to add 30 extlangs, *none* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.
>
> * for 'zh' we are about to add 13 extlangs, *only four* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR (cmn, gan, wuu, yue).
>
> * for 'sgn' we are about to add 132 extlangs, *none* of which are 
> "extlangish" in the current LSR.

You are introducing a new term, "extlangish," for grandfathered tags 
registered in the RFC 1766/3066 era which happen to resemble 
language-extlang combinations.

In fact, except for the three "zh-cmn" tags, all of the "zh-something" 
tags were registered in 1999 or 2001, and there is no interesting 
difference between the "somethings" that are three letters long and the 
ones that are longer.

The grandfathered tags may have provided some impetus for the creation 
of extlangs in "zh", but other than that, I don't believe any decision 
on extlangs has had much to do with whether the Registry already had 
"extlangish" grandfathered tags, nor should it.

> Was there "rough consensus" to add extlangs for any othdZ�k��.�Ǭ�����_v�6����������Ȟ����jT��!�������ޖ+ޭ�'�}�܆[k��܆+�������E��&��q�a��۽4ռ����jk%r�����"�13��M��N��M<��ۭ;��s���jT�������
��:%������jk%r��yǢ�����ƥ��-���,�]��[�+{v��W(���a#>'Eӿ:���[k��{v��W(�8n�n�m4�n4�
5Պ��IƧ������Z���eҥ����
9t�jd�����WJ��-�t�jd�j۬6���