Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

[Leif Halvard Silli <[e-mail]>]

Kent Karlsson 2008-05-29 10.07:

> Broome, Karen wrote:
>> I thought the primary goal was identification, not fallback. 
>> Without extlang, we lose some information the ISO standards 
>> otherwise contain. 
> 
> You seem to be arguing for (in an ideal case) a partial
> language family hierarcy in each tag. Tags like
> 
> gem-de (or gem-deu)
> 
> or even
> 
> und-ine-gem-de-gsw
> 
> and the like. Of course that is not possible to introduce, for
> several reasons. I'm just trying to understand your argument.
> As Mark mentioned, the individual language codes do identify
> a language, without explicitly giving any part of the
> hierarchy in the tag.

Like I said in my response, I think the identification issue has 
to do with the currently used general tags. If 'gem' a) had been a 
macrolanguage tag and b) had been the currently used tag for all 
the encompassed languages, then we would have had the same situation.

Then, when ISO defineed "deu" as tag for Hochdeutch, LTRU could 
have implempented tagging as 'gem-deu'. Browsers searching for 
'gem' would still find it, while we at the same time could get new 
browsers to search for  'gem-deu' primarely and 'gem' secondly.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru