Re: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants

Mark Davis wrote:

> It appears that you didn't see my message of Feb 20, 2007 2:10 PM

in which he wrote:

> In that case, I'd make canonicalization put all general variants 
> before all specific variants, and within those two groups, put them in 
> alphabetical order.

That doesn't solve the problem of rearranging "ca-valencia-coastal" to 
"ca-coastal-valencia", where "coastal" is assumed to be a subvariant of 
"ca-valencia" and has that as its Prefix.  All of the variants involved 
here are specific, not general, and so belong to the same alphabetically 
sorted group.

I assume that "specific" and "general" variants are defined as those 
that do and do not have a Prefix, respectively.

What I don't understand is why all this machinery is preferable to a 
statement in RFC 4646bis that for matching purposes ONLY, the order of 
variants should be ignored.

--
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