Re: [Ltru] extlang

Hoi,
The point was if it makes sense to allow for both zh-cmn and cmn. The 
fact that some languages are considered together a single language is 
very much beside the point. I will not argue that. One point is that 
computers can easily equate these two codes as being the same.

The other point to my argument is not addressed; this is that it is 
easier to explain to people; a single code per language and for 
compatibilities sake, zh is understood to be all these languages and is 
therefore not as discrete it can be appended with the later code. Of 
importance is that in this way more content will be tagged in a way that 
is correct. When you allow for one language one tag, you make it easier 
for people to do a right thing.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Doug Ewell schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen <gerard dot meijssen at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
>> You can explain that zh is old and Mandarin can be used as zh-cmn and 
>> cmn as a consequence. People will opt for cmn if they have the option 
>> and to it right, they will still opt for cmn and you would call them 
>> wrong.
>
> This continues to be a misrepresentation of the nature and intent of 
> macrolanguages.  It is not a question of one being "old" and the other 
> being "new."  If it were, the "old" code element would not exist in 
> ISO 639-3.
>
> The ISO 639-3/RA has determined that for some languages, including 
> Chinese and I guess 53 others, it is suitable or common in some 
> situations to think of them as a single language and in other 
> situations as multiple languages.  That is the decision they have 
> made, based on their knowledge and research.  I do not consider it my 
> job, at least, to second-guess their knowledge or research about 
> Chinese and declare that it is never appropriate to think of Chinese 
> as a single language, nor to "bake" (as Mark would say) my opinion 
> into the tagging standard.
>

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