Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Thu, 16 July 2009 04:49 UTC

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:29:06 -0400
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Message-ID: <20090716042905.GK27069@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <mailman.14390.1247692636.4936.ltru@ietf.org> <2C301BED90C8444795F972900C5C6E24@DGBP7M81>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2C301BED90C8444795F972900C5C6E24@DGBP7M81>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6
Precedence: list

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> There's nothing wrong with suggesting alternatives to ISO 639-6, but 
> let's steer clear of the completely unworkable ones.

[viz. UN/LOCODE and ISO 3166-2]

+1

> Any proposal to assign variants on a systematic, formulaic basis -- not 
> three or four, but dozens or hundreds or thousands -- ought to make us 
> stop and wonder why we don't establish an extension for the purpose 
> instead:

The point of creating an extension is to provide additional orthogonal
information that is packaged up with the language tag.  (IMHO this is
rather silly, as few databases allow only one field, but who knows.)
They aren't meant to be used for specification that of language variant
information; that is semantically part of the language tag and belongs
in the variant field.

-- 
Mos Eisley spaceport.  You will never           John Cowan
see a more wretched hive of scum and            cowan@ccil.org
villainy --unless you watch the                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Jerry Springer Show.   --georgettesworld.com

Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Doug Ewell
Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Doug Ewell
Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Mark Davis ⌛
Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 John Cowan
Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Phillips, Addison
Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Doug Ewell