Doug Ewell scripsit: > There's nothing wrong with suggesting alternatives to ISO 639-6, but > let's steer clear of the completely unworkable ones. [viz. UN/LOCODE and ISO 3166-2] +1 > Any proposal to assign variants on a systematic, formulaic basis -- not > three or four, but dozens or hundreds or thousands -- ought to make us > stop and wonder why we don't establish an extension for the purpose > instead: The point of creating an extension is to provide additional orthogonal information that is packaged up with the language tag. (IMHO this is rather silly, as few databases allow only one field, but who knows.) They aren't meant to be used for specification that of language variant information; that is semantically part of the language tag and belongs in the variant field. -- Mos Eisley spaceport. You will never John Cowan see a more wretched hive of scum and cowan at ccil.org villainy --unless you watch the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Jerry Springer Show. --georgettesworld.com
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.