Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

I went with that in the update.

As to your comment, the issue is that the source often has a very strong
influence on the content. It is often important to capture that difference
in language tags so that content can be tagged as such, and as or more
importantly, so that it can be used in queries and matching: knowing that
content is ja-t-it rather than ja-t-ru is often as or more important than
knowing that content is en-AR vs en-US.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>wrote:

> Hi -
>
> > From: "Mark Davis ☕" <mark@macchiato.com>
> > To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
> > Cc: <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> >
> > How about:* BCP 47 Extension T - Content Transforms*
> ...
>
> It sounds like folks really mean "Transformed Content".
>
> (Please don't assume that I agree with putting all these
> things into "T".  I think language tagging should be about
> what a representation *is*, not about its provenance.
> The latter can clearly be useful information, but I think
> it's beyond the scope of what can reasonably be accommodated
> in a language tag - it rapidly leads to things like the
> ideolect tagging advocated long ago by a vociferous dissenter
> on this list.)
>
> Randy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>