Re: [Ltru] a modest proposal...

Phillips, Addison 2008-05-29 21.38:

> 2. Keep the Macrolanguage field in the registry for all [...]

Will encompassed Chinese languages have the macrolanguage field?

It is good if all macro and encompassed languages are treated the 
same way. But then it is perhaps also questionable if there are 
two such important exceptions.  Chinese is a classic example of 
what "macrolanguage" is or means.

 > 3. Cherry pick *only* the 'zh' (and possibly the 'ar')
 > encompassed languages for registration as extlangs. This is
 > done in the name of compatibility alone.

I support including 'sgn'. But what does "in the name of 
compatibility alone" mean? That it isn't linked to macrolangauge? 
If it *is* linked to macrolanguage, then you can't explain it as a 
compatibility issue and vice-versa.

 > 4. Permit implementations to treat the 'language' production as
 > atomic (that is, the sequence "zh-yue" MAY be treated as if it
 > were a single subtag but MAY be treated as separate subtags,
 > notably by existing implementations). Note that the 'language'
 > production is the one that includes both the primary and
 > extended language subtags.

Might all these exceptions to 'zh' only hamper Chinese and Sign 
languages (and in the end perhaps make this tagging style unstable?)?

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: Let's cherry pick in some way or another. 
But let's have extlang as a macrolanguage thing, and thus explain 
it not as an exception for compatibility reasons, but as one of 
two method for handeling the macrolanguage identification.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru