[Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis...

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> Wah!? Combining the variant tag fonipa with Kore shouldn't be valid, 
> though I guess we don't have a way to block it at present. (It would 
> take some awkward combination of  "must have script subtag Latn" OR 
> "must have a lang subtag with Suppress-Script of 'Latn'".)

Which is a place we really don't want to go.  "Tag content wisely" is 
the best way to prevent such tags.

But I would rather see a different language-script-region-variant 
combination that doesn't call quite so much attention to the ability to 
create semantically contradictory tags.  The passage is supposed to be 
about semantically consistent tags that refer to non-existent language 
variations.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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