Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang

At 07:35 07/08/29, John Cowan wrote:
>Mark Davis scripsit:

>>       2. With the Macrolanguage field, there is sufficient information
>>       for *anyone* who wants to to implement extlang-like fallback
>>       (including for sh or no), *without* encumbering the IDs with
>>       superfluous information.
>
>I support the Macrolanguage: field for the uses which you mention.
>Furthermore, I support extlangs *only* in the context of using newly
>introduced 639-3 identifiers that are encompassed by a macrolanguage
>registered in 639-2.  Thus, I do *not* support changes to language
>tags based on shifting macrolanguage information as SIL learns more,
>just the 350+ specific code elements of 639-3, and no more.

Hello John,

I'm sure you have done so somewhere already, but for everybody
to see, could you (pointer is okay) provide a list of the
macrolanguages that would be handled by extlangs?
(and maybe also those that wouldn't).
Also, is your proposal above the same thing as what's in the
current draft, or would the draft need tweaking?
(My reading of Randy's collection of snippets seems to indicate
that our draft would need some work.)
If that's the case, can you provide some proposed text?

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     

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