John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
2. Define all of the Y forms (e.g. "cmn") in the Registry as Type: extlang, none as Type: language. Bear with me here.Presumably this is meant to exclude the ones which are already in as languages? I don't think we want to allow sh-bos, for example.
I did not mean to add this type of situation to the mix, where X-Y is equivalent to Z. We would want to exclude the languages that already have two-letter subtags. This is a cherry-pick for a sound syntactical reason.
More seriously, though, it breaks the invariant that the syntactic slot "language" is filled only with "language" subtags. Currently this invariant applies to all four kinds of subtags, and I think it's an important part of Getting It Right for people who haven't read all the fine print: once you clear away the grandfathered rubbish, you can just take the Cartesian product of the four lists of subtags as a rough guide to validity.
This is true.
I would rather keep -16's scheme than this, frankly.
Fair enough. Hey, at least the conversation got started. -- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.