IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example

"Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com> Thu, 29 May 2008 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904DF3A6BE4; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 0EF0128C16A for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6gc9cVJeZDEN for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-6101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-6101.amazon.com [72.21.208.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86BB28C1A3 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,563,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="316654930"
Received: from smtp-in-1105.vdc.amazon.com ([10.140.9.24]) by smtp-border-fw-out-6101.iad6.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 May 2008 23:45:14 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-4104.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4104.sea5.amazon.com [10.248.163.25]) by smtp-in-1105.vdc.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4TNjDk7000476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 May 2008 23:45:14 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.28]) by ex-hub-4104.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.25]) with mapi; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:45:10 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
To: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:45:06 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example
Thread-Index: AcjB0f6ruPqIExWNRkSEzfdk/zIQxwADauWgAADWJbA=
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A90F8F1@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
References: <mailman.636.1211925384.15310.ltru@ietf.org> <004d01c8c065$838b8d50$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <008001c8c105$cc421820$64c64860$@net> <001501c8c121$646ebe80$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <483E14ED.6030100@malform.no> <002601c8c13e$60217e40$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <483E3D68.1080202@malform.no> <004901c8c155$419bf560$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C39D@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <483EFFDA.7020401@malform.no> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633304EB66@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <483F1E46.5010003@malform.no> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633304ED74@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633304ED74@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

>
> Even so, the point I was making remains valid: "no-nb" or "no-nob" or
> "no-nn" or "no-nno" would not be compatible with existing usage.
>

The tags "no-nb" and "no-nn" (in which 'nb' and 'nn' represent languages and not regions) cannot be made legal without breaking many things. Like compatibility with ISO 3166-1, for example. This has *always* been true, even in RFC 1766 or RFC 3066.

The tags "no-nno" and "no-nob" could be made legal if we were to restore extlang. However, at no point has this been contemplated because 'nb' and 'nn' are already valid primary language subtags and we have a pretty firm policy of not making synonyms. This would introduce Yet Another Way to Tag Norwegian, which is kind of a mess, given that:

The tags "no-bok" and "no-nyn" are grandfathered (and deprecated, but still valid), since they were registered under RFC 1766 and later ISO 639-1 created 'nb' and 'nn', replacing them.

Macrolanguage information is "useful" here, in that it allows one to determine that 'nb' and 'nn' are each related to 'no', as many systems continued to use 'no', blithely ignoring the Bokmal/Nynorsk divide.

Addison


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email