IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Mon, 19 May 2008 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0913A3A6AAE; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2A93A6AAE for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVuab078cG3g for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0E83A6A50 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:13 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.44]) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.88.96]) with mapi; Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:12 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 21:56:08 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang
Thread-Index: Aci4iSoUlID5VSDwScCIRSG9souYNwA4k2lw
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E143DBB4@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080518102122.04b49530@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20080518102122.04b49530@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Martin Duerst

> I'm okay with using extlangs only for those cases that already
> have a macrolanguage subtag currently available, or some other
> reasonable, not too 'cherry-picky' cutoff.

I think the cases for which extlangs might be most beneficial are those in which the macrolanguage ID has been in existing usage. For instance, we entertain the possibility in the case of Chinese because 'zh' has been in established use; if we had never used 'zh' before but had been using 'cmn', 'yue, etc., then we wouldn't hesitate to reject the suggestion if introducing 'zh' and changing 'cmn' etc. to be extlangs. Similarly, if people are just starting to use 'scs' and 'xsl' (North Slavey and South Slavey, respectively -- two of the official language of the Northwest Territories), then there's probably no particular benefit to using the ID for the encompassing macrolanguage and making them extlangs -- 'den-scs and 'den-xsl'.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email