Re: [Ltru] Canonical variants

["Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>]

Mark Davis wrote:

- put prefix variant subtags before their suffixes (that is, if V1 occurs in a Prefix of V2, V1 should go first) 

Hmm, shouldn't variant subtags that have declared prefixes in the registry that do not come *directly* aftFrom ltru-bounces at ietf.org  Tue Jul 15 13:21:28 2008
Return-Path: <ltru-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-web-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB3A3A6B27;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6795F3A6848
	for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 0+CfhBzSIbm3 for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net
	[80.76.149.213])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9F93A67D8
	for <ltru at ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c83-248-80-178.bredband.comhem.se ([83.248.80.178]:33287
	helo=wgbgkka02x) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
	(envelope-from <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>) id 1KIr21-0004lU-7D
	for ltru at ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:21:53 +0200
From: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>
To: <ltru at ietf.org>
References: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579563391BED5F at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579563391BF847 at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><6.0.0.20.2.20080715183726.097251a8 at localhost><30b660a20807150743s2b055ee6n1e7de2064231336c at mail.gmail.com><20080715151952.GF18383 at mercury.ccil.org><30b660a20807150843t3ab3c12cif098feb980d4efce at mail.gmail.com><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633928C6A1 at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><20080715170720.GJ18383 at mercury.ccil.org><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633928C701 at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013BE315A9 at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
	<30b660a20807151138h1814742bi3dda0c596bb83d36 at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:21:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9DF2581D5B4086AEE40192CBED645B at streamserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <30b660a20807151138h1814742bi3dda0c596bb83d36 at mail.gmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
thread-index: Acjmqe7Hn6G3c3+vTTCtd2iIG3VtnwAC8sEA
X-Originating-IP: 83.248.80.178
X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KIr21-0004lU-7D.
X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KIr21-0004lU-7D
	9907ba98601fb93e8423edd91d02da2a
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Canonical variants
X-BeenThere: ltru at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list
	<ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==============!26353305=="
Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Mark Davis wrote:

- put prefix variant subtags before their suffixes (that is, if V1 occurs in a Prefix of V2, V1 should go first) 

Hmm, shouldn't variant subtags that have declared prefixes in the registry that do not come *directly* after one of those prefixes in the tag make the tag invalid? That should be the case also for extlangs, otherwise things like zh-cmn-nan would be valid tags, and I don't think they should be.

 

And for variant subtags that don't have a prefix declared in the registry, multiple occurrences of the *same* variant subtag in a tag should also render the tag invalid.

 

    /kent k

 

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