Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> >Addision and I have discussed the issue of extlang and Macrolanguages 
> >and are proposing the following text replacing the use of extlang.
> 
> I won't object to this proposed solution.  

I don't object to having a Macrolanguage header as such, and even to
making it mutable (and therefore informative).

I do most strenuously object to upsetting the extlang applecart.  Extlangs
are a sensible and necessary shim between the 639-2-only world of 4646
and the mixed 639-2/3 world of 4646bis, and I have seen no compelling
reasons why they should be discarded.  We have been planning them for
years, and we should stick to our plan unless there is some hard reason
to change it.

> It still floors me that we expect any parsers at all to be able to match 
> "yue" with "zh" but not to be able to pick "en-US" out of "en-Latn-US". 
> And of course all of the grandfathered tags of the form "zh-yue" will 
> now have to be deprecated in favor of "yue", instead of being made 
> redundant.

Exactly.

-- 
Possession is said to be nine points of the law,                John Cowan
but that's not saying how many points the law might have.       cowan@ccil.org
        --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father)

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru