Re: [Ltru] A radical proposal (was: Re: extlang & deprecation)

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

Well, in the case of zh, we have no choice about "zh=yue" etc.: those tags are out there in the wild already. But no such extlang-form tags exist yet for ar, nor has that been used explicitly to mean distinct languages, making it pre-conditioned, so to speak, for extlang use: it is still an option to leave "ar" to legacy usage, and to tag the more granular Arabic distinctions "arb", "aao", etc. without the extlang form.

(A small correction wrt ms: MARC explicitly describes the corresponding alpha-3 ID "may" as being used for "Pelambang Malay" as well as for "Malay". It's not clear to me exactly what is meant by "Pelambang Malay" or how it relates to existing entries in ISO 639-3.)

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 12:29 AM
> To: Peter Constable; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] A radical proposal (was: Re: extlang & deprecation)
>
> Peter - Just a clarifying question:
>
> Are you saying that zh has been used for both Mandarin and Cantonese
> (and others), whereas ar has only been used for Standard Arabic, and
> ms has only been used for Standard Malay, at least as far as business-
> relevant languages?
>
> In my eyes, that would make a stronger suggestion for keeping ms and
> ar (i.e. going the extlang way) than for keeping zh.
>
> Can you confirm or explain further?
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
> At 07:43 08/07/04, Peter Constable wrote:
> >> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >> John Cowan
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:45 PM
> >
> >
> >> > I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I find the analogy
> for
> >> things
> >> > like ar-arb too persuasive to fully agree to the limitation.
> >>
> >> Fine, but where do we stop?  The only valid tag for Malay right now
> is
> >> 'ms', so that's what people use...
> >
> >There is a slight difference between the zh case and cases like ms and
> ar
> >in that for zh we have known, explicit usage of that single ID for
> what are
> >widely recognized to be distinct languages with separate business
> >relevance. Currently, that's not the case (that I know of) for ar or
> ms.
> >(Of course, that could change.)
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ltru mailing list
> >Ltru at ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
> mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
>

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru