Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang
...
> There was also a proposal (I think I made it) to limit extlangs to "at 
> 4646bis birth only"---that is, only currently enclosed languages that 
> are otherwise unencoded would be extlangs. This gets us the (for 
> example) the enclosed Chinese dialects (etc.), but not any future 
> extlangs. Future registrations would be primary language subtags only.
...

I think it's important to keep in mind the "division of labor" between
the ltru WG and the function of the ietf-languages@iana.org list.
Here in the WG, we need to ensure that the registry and registration
process ensure that the right bits get recorded in the right spots,
and that the resulting language tag structure works.  We only have to
agree that there are cases of "enclosing languages" that make it
worthwhile to represent this property in the regsitry, and to account
for in in our matching algorithms.

Deciding which specific languages are to be given such treatment
does not belong here.  We only need to concern oursevles with the
question of whether it is a requirement (that seems to be agreed).
If we cannot agree on a uniform way to handle these cases for the
big batch of tags we'd like add, based entirely on the data from
the standards from which we're importing this information, then
I suggest that those details would most properly be hashed out
on the ietf-languages list on a case-by-case basis.

Randy

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