[Ltru] Re: Fallback vs. Macrolanguage? (was: John Cowan throws in...)

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> Wouldn't it be easier, more consistent, cleaner, and cherry-free to keep 
> what we've already proposed in draft-09, that is, to include the 
> Macrolanguage field in the registry as informative information (and then 
> note in either 4646bis or 4647bis about possible courses of action in 
> cases of match failure)?

I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to fall back in all cases of
macrolanguages (as Peter's list shows), and it may well be appropriate
to fall back in some cases that aren't macrolanguages at all (Breton ->
French is the example we've talked about a lot).  Using a different name
lets us decouple from 639-3's particular choices.

-- 
John Cowan    [e-mail]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Half the lies they tell about me are true.
        -- Tallulah Bankhead, American actress


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru