Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> I may have missed the answer to this question, apologies if I have, 
> but why not include cwm within the registry and then deprecate in 
> favour of zh-cwm? This way both are in the registry and the fallback, 
> as described by Mark, is facilitated. The same could be done for 
> zh-yue and yue and no-nb etc.  Thus if people tag "incorrectly", with, 
> for example, cwm or yue, applications would come up with the correct 
> match anyway.
>
> I cannot pretend that I understand the entirety of the current 
> conversations wrt extended language tags but I do think their 
> inclusion would be useful for matching purposes.

I would not be in favor of creating 482 new deprecated-at-birth subtags. 
I think "deprecated" is a necessary evil that is needed when an ISO code 
element is withdrawn or a mistake is found.  It should not be a 
mechanism for implementing fallback.

--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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