[Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, macrolanguages in section 4.1

John Cowan wrote:

> It is always permitted, and sometimes useful, to tag an
> encompassed language using the subtag for its macrolanguage.

s/always permitted, and//  It is sometimes useful, enough said,
the rest of your proposed text is IMO unnecessary, "let the
market decide" (not exactly my favourite option, but if you 
want to go into details you need examples)

> Applications MAY use macrolanguage information to improve 
> matching or language negotiation.

+1 (no Michael here, I can say +1 ;-)

> For example, the information that 'sr' (Serbian) and 'hr' 
> (Croatian) share a macrolanguage expresses a closer relation
> between those languages than between, say, 'sr' (Serbian)
> and 'ma' (Macedonian).

Dubious example, what if ISO 639-3 adds 'ma' to the 'sh' set ?

> It is valid to use the subtag of the encompassed language or
> of the macrolanguage to form language tags.

At a price, 'sh' is deprecated, and 'sh' has no Suppress-Script.
You picked certainly an interesting example for this business.

> In general, use the most specific tag.  However, where the
> macrolanguage tag has been historically used to denote a
> dominant encompassed language, it SHOULD be used in place

-1  It is messy, don't make it worse, "let the market decide".

 Frank

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