Re: [Ltru] RE: duel(ing) tags

Read the spec. Items are not permitted to exist in both language and 
extlang. Furthermore, 'deprecated' does not mean illegal. In fact, you'd 
be required to support it as a valid tagging option.

Whether my software chooses to deal with bad tags by equating them to 
something else is up to me (and how it does so), is my problem. Making 
such mappings obligatory (which, as I'll point out, requires registry 
access, something we have historically tried hard to avoid as an 
implementation requirement), I oppose.

Addison

Debbie Garside wrote:
> Addison wrote:
> 
>> I definitely am against providing both tagging options.
> 
> But where is the harm in including cmn in the registry and then deprecating
> in favour of zh-cmn?  As stated previously, this would catch those who
> unwittingly tag with any 639-3 code and are unaware of macrolanguages and
> 4646bis.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Debbie
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com]
>> Sent: 10 October 2007 21:01
>> To: Shawn Steele
>> Cc: ltru@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ltru] RE: duel(ing) tags
>>
>> 'cmn' is not a valid subtag at present. It is part of the
>> 7000+ additional subtags in ISO 639-3 that are being added.
>> Presumably nothing is tagged with 'cmn' today.
>>
>> I definitely am against providing both tagging options.
>>
>> Addison
>>
>> Shawn Steele wrote:
>>> I was sort of wondering the same thing.
>>>
>>> I was thinking that to support mistakes, legacy tags &
>> other randomness it might be best if any matching stuff I
>> wrote recognized that cmn & zh-cmn were interchangeable.  It
>> is unclear to me if data is currently tagged as cmn though,
>> although I know some is tagged as zh-cmn.
>>> - Shawn
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:46:18 +0100
>>> From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
>>> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags
>>> To: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "'Doug Ewell'"
>>>         <dewell@roadrunner.com>,        "'LTRU Working
>> Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
>>> Message-ID: <04f501c80b22$68debac0$0d00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Debbie Garside
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ltru mailing list
>>> Ltru@ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>> --
>> Addison Phillips
>> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
>> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
>>
>> Internationalization is an architecture.
>> It is not a feature.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltru mailing list
>> Ltru@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

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