Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguages, countries & orthographies

Mark Davis scripsit:

> 2. If you asked me right now up-or-down on ISO 639-6, I'd say absolutely
> not, since (a) it would introduce all kinds of duplicate encodings, and
> (b) there has been no clear rationale given that the other information
> is worth adding.

Let me reiterate my proposal on 693-6: discard all the codes except
those in the following two classes:

A) Code elements which represent collections and are not subordinate to
any 639-2 collection code element.

B) Code elements which represent variants that are subordinate to code
elements that are equivalent to some language-script-region 4646 tag.

Class A code elements are made into 4-letter initial subtags (currently
reserved).  Class B code elements are made into variant subtags by
prepending a '6' (not '6-') to the code element.  This is artificial,
but it satisfies the 4646 syntax.

> For example, the second two of these, from your example, would be
> duplicates.
> kca     obgc    Khanty
> kcal    kcaw    Khanty Written Latin Script
> kcac    kcaw    Khanty Written Cyrillic Script

Indeed, and none would be added under my proposal, since they are
equivalent to "kca", "kca-Latn", and "kca-Cyrl" respectively.

> A hierarchy of languages may well be useful in some circumstances,
> but it is orthogonal to the requirements of BCP 47.

Indeed.  I don't see any need for the hierarchical information
in RFC 4646bis or -ter.

-- 
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML      John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker       cowan@ccil.org
saying "No information items inside".           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eve Maler

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