Re: [Ltru] Re: Test suite for language tags?

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> There are two types of grandfathered tag, actually. There are those tags 
> which are "well-formed" but for which some of the subtags are not 
> registered (let us call these "regular" tags). And there are those tags 
> which do not follow the grammar of RFC 3066bis (let us call these 
> "irregular" tags).
> 
> A well-formed processor needs only a list of the irregular tags, but it 
> MUST have such a list or it will malfunction.
> 
> A validating processing, by definition, needs the complete list.
> 
> Note that the list of irregular tags is permanent and immutable.

+1

> It should be noted that Stephane's example of "fr-Lat" passing is not an 
> error. A three-letter subtag in the second position is an extlang. The 
> tag is not currently valid, but it is well-formed. A validating 
> processor, of course, will catch this.

My point is that fr-Lat is not a *grandfathered* tag.  Nothing can ever
be a grandfathered tag except the 34 existing examples.  The current ABNF
for a grandfathered tag, 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum)), therefore
recognizes too much.

> >The grammar rules are meant to cover the possibilities, not to serve as
> >a test for recognizing grandfathered tags.
> 
> Yes. And the fact is that we can only list the irregular tags in RFC, 
> since the regular grandfathered tags can become redundant.

Listing them would do no harm.

> Which ones did you have in mind here, John? I don't think I see any that 
> will become redundant at present (unless you have designs on en-scouse 
> or en-boont). Deprecated, certainly, but not redundant, I think.

See my last two ietf-languages postings.

> Note that "cel-gaulish" is a regular tag: it still has potential of 
> becoming redundant. Although "zh-min" is regular, the code "min" in ISO 
> 639-3 (at present) represents a wholly different language (Minangkabau) 
> that will be a primary language subtag (and thus can't be an extlang).

Correct; these are regular in form but effectively irregular (Gaulish
isn't a variant; if anything, it's a macrolanguage, but not treated
as such in 639-3.)

> If we can dispose, somehow, of all the regular tags, then I would 
> support such a scheme. If there are unresolved regular tags (whose 
> stripes could change to redundant), I think it would be more of a problem.

I think there will be none:  cel-gaulish and zh-min are regular but
cannot be made redundant; the other remaining tags will be redundant,
deprecated, or both.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan      cowan@ccil.org      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

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