<t>Requests to assign an additional record of a given type with an existing subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the variant subtag 'rozaj' already exists in the registry, so adding a second record of type 'variant' with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited.</t>
Here is my proposal based on the discussion.
<t>Records are unique by Type and Subtype: the registry MUST not contain two different records that have identical values for both Type and Subtype. Thus requests to assign an additional record of a given Type with an existing Subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the variant subtag 'rozaj' already exists in the registry, so adding a second record of type 'variant' with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited. However, information can be added to an existing record. For example, the '1994' subtag variant record could have the prefix 'fr-CA' added together with a description of usage for a French Canadian spelling reform associated with the year 1994.</t>
<t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple (or no) prefixes must have consistent meaning across those prefixes. Four digit subtags should refer to some specification or change associated with a year for the given prefixes. Other subtags may be associated with an authority for the language, orthography, or transliteration (transcription), such as 'ungegn', 'bgn', or 'gost'. When applied to different prefixes, they would always refer to the same authority.</t>
Mark
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Phillips, Addison
<addison at amazon.com> wrote:
>
> [chair hat on]
> I think I have seen very strong opposition to having multiple
> records with the same variant subtag, for implementation reasons,
> and nobody fighting for multiple records as such. Addison and Mark,
> unless this is already covered in -17, can I ask you to draft some
> language covering this (and only this) point?
I already drafted it in the editor's copy and just proposed removing said draft for lack of any consensus. draft-18 on inter-locale has the proposed text.
Addison