Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6

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

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F8E3A692D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJxed0LCRs3E for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56A63A690D for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1MRIag-0000D1-47; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:29:06 -0400
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
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:49:29 -0000

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