Re: [Ltru] Extlang stability (was: extlang)

Mark Davis scripsit:

> First, I don't want to belabor the point about scripts, but it is easy to
> recognize when a particular language is written in a script. The harder part
> is determining usage. That is different from the language case, where as you
> know the boundaries between languages are *FAR* less well defined; as you go
> from one village to another you get accumulating differences that finally at
> some point you say constitute separate languages.

All that's quite true, but I was making a different point, a procedural one.
The ISO 639/RAs are in the business of making decisions about languages,
so we (ietf-languages, specifically) need not be.  Suppress-Script is
IETF-specific, but nobody has stepped forward with the resources to make
the decisions and (even more important) to review them.

> As to macrolanguage, it appears that we are in general consensus on the
> usefulness of having the Macrolanguage field in the registry.

+1

> The open issue is whether we also bake it into the extlang structure. I'm
> hoping that in the telecon we can make some progress on resolving that
> issue.

+1

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan@ccil.org
Economists were put on this planet to make astrologers look good.
        --Leo McGarry

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