Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

Mark Davis ☕ <> Thu, 14 July 2011 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0EAC21F8B60 for <>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1d2jMbCHdFYK for <>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495A121F8D3F for <>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxp4 with SMTP id 4so227864yxp.31 for <>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=W9H3XzTWOCkQkC+lJHXpYZ2v2Bl4sr0y+Ql20kwGWVI=; b=wOi5qZmfdgfPtHKVGCHSTu9uTeBexKT0fz6cJGF0xkNI0fjkoL0W90sThdihXn42ek u8NXeCbio7UNPvfdyKwp08AOvkSG6JyY57LaSOIOryekMBDnmkrEpAeBIBzQoT89r3NR cFAU5K3PyFygxw7B8gjqVBcM0M9KIHj3GUyXk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id z20mr2512164ybh.193.1310663009732; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:03:29 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sBKkVMylVP_7q_2_yed6Q9qc2Ps
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <>
To: John Cowan <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6f0801d876404a80a83e6
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:03:37 -0000

Thanks. It would be possible to do it that way.

I'm a bit hesitant to do so, however, until we've had more experience with
use cases. With regular language tags, for example, I cannot indicate that I
speak Californian English with the pin-pen merger. That isn't a specious
example; some people somewhere care deeply about these kinds of
distinctions. We could have arbitrarily complicated chains of "influence":
this content was Georgian translated into Russian (but by a native Ukrainian
speaker), then transliterated into Portuguese, then translated into British
English according to

Ok, that's a bit fanciful. But the point is that I think we need to get some
more experience with 2 levels (source+target) before we see what makes sense
beyond that. For those people with particular immediate requirements, a
mechanism could be used in the meantime.

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:23, John Cowan <> wrote:

> In case you missed it (it was embedded in another posting), I proposed
> the -t0- subtag to indicate a transformation path: thus en-t-fr-t0-sq
> would indicate text translated from Albanian to French and then to
> English (as is often done with Albanian literature because of the lack
> of clear copyright law in Albania, so that no one knows who has rights
> to what).
> Formally, this subtag is needed because stacked -t- extensions are
> forbidden by RFC 5646.