Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Fri, 30 August 2019 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B94D1209C9 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xWhOV7Day3UG for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plwbeout03-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtp03-01-2.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.218.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 992651209CB for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plgemwbe03-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.218.133]) by :WBEOUT: with SMTP id 3p7CiDolHHysj3p7Ciqzeb; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:11:30 -0700
X-SID: 3p7CiDolHHysj
Received: (qmail 11861 invoked by uid 99); 30 Aug 2019 22:11:30 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.189
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.9.59
Message-Id: <20190830151128.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.54f6e1b154.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net>, "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:11:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJLI57vM4ON9BTisl5ALkH0rmY1XnmvrwCHUMMjt0/vguvYqgoPqnHBLUdFsz7Ofs7hW/qmss4T6SD2/M2HHncxPBNemrDfWB6X68ZIsDcMF+cBBuVXn 1f6VTCyiU7xJdRwJZXhsZck9z/+4Re9LbtwQLBRMKdR76P+9SM17ic0mtbrhOrqJQ18XsIr7KfJPAqw+EhrWzdaG6DREFTop4lI=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/Wa1V_Lf44SL3SwmT7i4KW2RmDEk>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ltru/>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:12:03 -0000

 Florian Rivoal wrote:
 
> nb is the preferred form of grandfathered+deprecated no-bok, nn of
> no-nyn, and no is marked as a macrolanguage. Why do they have not
> extlang?
 
One possible reason, although it might not be "the" reason — I would
have to look into the mail archives to see if this was raised — was
that extlangs and their corresponding primary language subtags have to
be identical, and extlangs can't be two letters long, because then they
would be region subtags.
 
It might be worth noting that "no-bok" and "no-nyn" aren't real
extlangs, despite looking like them. They were created under the RFC
1766/3066 whole-tag registration model, back in 1995, before ISO 639
added code elements [nb] and [nn] in 2000. That's why they are
grandfathered (because the tags don't mean what breaking them apart into
subtags would indicate) and deprecated (because there are regular
subtags that are preferred).
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org