RE: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

> > * Even for the current tags, many of the people in the teleconference
> > seem to extend RFC 4647 in ways that are best for them.  Strict use of
> > 4647 behavior seems rare.  It seems reasonable to me to expect that in
> > the future people may continue to do so and that RFC 4647 and the
> > registry can only provide guidelines.

> I agree with the part about RFC 4647, but not the Registry, at least not
> in blanket terms.

> The Registry contains some fields that are normative and some that are
> informative.

Tagging and lookup however are different.  Many of the uses I'm involved with presume that tags are correctly defined:  ie: only installed locales are allowed to be used for resource names, or for marking documents.  Presumably the locales were created correctly when they were installed, so I don't have to worry about "eng" being valid.

Making a matching dependency on the registry would require a new data source, which could be problematic, which is why I prefer the information be in the tags.  If the tags are invalid I won't match correctly, but I won't have to look up an on-line dependency.  Obviously this is less of a problem for some applications, but I don't see there being any downside and it does help to have the ext lang tag in this case.

- Shawn