[Ltru] Re: Extlang stability

John Cowan wrote:

> Frank Ellermann scripsit:

>> The "extlang" concept is messier than "Suppress-Script", isn't it ?

> It is not, particularly because the work has been done for us by
> an ISO RA.  The trouble with Suppress-Script: is that we, the IETF,
> invented it ourselves, but don't have the resources to follow through.

IBTD, we invented the rigid and awkward extlang syntax, not ISO.  And
we want "stable forever" tags.  With the "Macrolanguage" construct the
relevant info is in the registry, not in the tag.  The registry can be
updated, e.g. replacing Macrolanguage "xx" by "aaa" in my example if
ISO rearranges one set (xx-aaa, xx-aab, xx-aac, xx-bbb) into two sets
(xx-aaa, xx-aaa-aab, xx-aaa-aac) plus (xx-bbb).

Wrt the resources, I've no clue why e.g. (no, nb, nn) or (bs, hr, sr,
sh) are recognized sets, while (de, gsw, nds) or similar groups aren't
identified as related.  It appears to be inconsistent.  But as long as
those sets are only identified in the registry, not in the tags, it's
no serious problem to split, join, add, or remove sets later.

Maybe we should limit the "extlang" business to sgn-* as a special
non-Macrolanguage set.

Frank

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