Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 (was: Geocoordinates)

[Peter Constable <[e-mail]>]

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> *If* we are to support these code elements, I think this is the right 
> place to do so.  The 4-letter language subtag was reserved in BCP 47 for 
> exactly this purpose, and if anyone, such as (ahem) Peter, sees a 
> conflict with this due to their "derivative use of the language tag 
> syntax," I'm sorry to say it, but that is a problem of their own making.

Just because we reserved something for some future possibility -- a decision taken without any consideration whatsoever of the merits of that possibility -- that doesn't mean that that possibility does have merits. For my part, I have always doubted the merits. On that basis, and assuming that nothing was likely to come of that possibility, I chose to pursue a derivative use in a particular application context. If it turns out that a future version of BCP47 does make use of those currently-reserved alpha-4 subtags, then indeed the problem will be mine (and I'm sure I'll survive). But I can tell you up front that I will most likely push back on a revision to make use of the reserved alpha-4 subtags not only because it's inconvenient for my derivative application but also because I remain very skeptical that there will be benefits (let alone ROI, considering the costs).



> I continue to be strongly opposed to adding hundreds or even thousands 
> of variant subtags, using the same mechanism we currently use to 
> register variants one by one.

Do you mean, "opposed to adding ... thousands of variant subtags _in mass_, and prefer to continue ... register[ing] variants one by one"?

If so, I agree.



Peter