IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-languages] Are BCP 47 collective language codes more suitable for zonal auxiliary languages than the "art" (Artificial) code?

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Tue, 30 November 2021 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB103A14F3 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3SftnqYtbzfg for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B12BF3A14F2 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id d2so28028039qki.12 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:34:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ag5xT9Fk90sCoDfx+5F5bTQ0ktMjFro70JRtNA32zzM=; b=68MNc42LgZaBmCoR55v652zN+QIqTCU9me/PLb5KeZG69X4Z6y12La8cwT/2TKMG8u YBX/RYlS3S6bKeSjlD8efio38yqksm/aocaYuBGJAEwuqS+HZiTNGVL0Pj4BtQf0T59U QXGEGThTHrwokk+4cYDneG+B7lfd4eDqAyeoGViZYDCayGwfNJ96vRmwFMvek/0NFYCx +EKmmG4RZVdWvU8MBfZ/+GcUi2/xVFbO1pBGpWbP7Xhgv/4FzjyaX4XE+Yp/HjuULdtx eTYAOCCup89c2s8xgQQi72zn0B3NsrWIyaurmKKeISeW8UtfQwV5uMKHS5lKsq8uOutP 7Ckw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ag5xT9Fk90sCoDfx+5F5bTQ0ktMjFro70JRtNA32zzM=; b=QKbBkBobhvkGNsgxKdOR+m/6VMaTI8kukcdwCkZDyA3B/Jzi5wpTfNR+yyahZgO+bu Qht5O6h93bJINfKwYwiUsp9HD+J+/H8pGjNe0csmW3iahDZlHQqEwEcY/nRZmqrmM588 c0Sug6BYuiUuHAakaefcFUjxLjmsg9LFTq+PhKP3Jq5OB3tfkCWmtGOAy01+/9mahi77 A27g/nKDmCABhy2pGiDbWB8YC6aTive9jWJI86aIK9mtDh0pUbfe5kEE3BOyxaFP/gfQ dpgsQXNX033mamFM7zVkqF5mpQG+FdIKUjFQWc4/4VM5QuRyvjZUMJqbuwKdfCBB8cWd A+KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532U+e2OwUu+QbCqeMSjCCYwbsYu2e0mNWpHjO6/++wmqLHX1g7M OJ5mPKL7u+wIPcZXivGVfqFGq+KdSRmvtUUT/J/hfQPJuewrHw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwzyuS5Pvq23eT4zsyb1G3gyYDlIDmJDRFk/ZtulkvzB6HqN0/8HqW3tKpFmXqQxQ1PHvzF2McYMtfEkv+4AE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:298a:: with SMTP id r10mr1440894qkp.381.1638300853330; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:34:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALTz4dJ-n6-Mx6_1zGDkQ4dCLr1iMWzywunYk_xhAZfwEHCxMQ@mail.gmail.com> <000001d7e4de$c654ae30$52fe0a90$@ewellic.org> <CALTz4dJs9ixCOj2mubgDH6PR3xwK2fUzP0MNAjEppPi2-4zpVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALTz4dJs9ixCOj2mubgDH6PR3xwK2fUzP0MNAjEppPi2-4zpVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:34:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_SVTbOu9EqbgmvVYUK-+Nbu2A+sKtuVs6UTy4_7Ya=v5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yaroslav Serhieiev <noomorph@gmail.com>
Cc: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>, ietf-languages@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065f6df05d206a492"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/OY1jYb4zQ4wDwaVWX2vbZ7CHqhU>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Are BCP 47 collective language codes more suitable for zonal auxiliary languages than the "art" (Artificial) code?
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Review of requests for language tag registration according to BCP 47 \(RFC 4646\)" <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:34:17 -0000

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:04 AM Yaroslav Serhieiev <noomorph@gmail.com>
wrote:


> There's a lot of ongoing development in Interslavic projects and a
> definitive answer to which temporary code we should use – `art-x-...`
> or `sla-x-...` will bring some order to the minor chaos we have across
> applications and libraries.
>

Well, the English Wikipedia page classifies it as a constructed language,
as do the Russian, Polish, and Croatian counterparts.  The Interslavic wiki
says it is a Slavic language.  These represent the "outsider" and "insider"
views.  My view is that f the typical Interslavic user thinks of it as a
Slavic language, then 'sla' is better; otherwise 'art'.  There are no
fixed rules for this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email