Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang

I had written:

> I will have nothing further to say on this topic, except to respond to 
> proposals that violate the syntax of RFC 4646.

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:

> This EITHER/OR way should, in my view (Doug, do you disagree?), open 
> the way for also allowing the "old" macrolanguages from 639-1, such as 
> Norwegian, to be used to form tags like "no-nn" and "no-nb".

If 'nn' and 'nb' in these tags are intended to mean Nynorsk and Bokmål, 
then this proposal violates the syntax of RFC 4646.  Non-initial, 
non-private-use, two-letter subtags in non-grandfathered tags can *only* 
be region subtags, not some other type of subtag.

See sections 2.1 and 2.2.4 in RFC 4646, and similar text in the current 
draft.  It *must* be possible to identify the type of a subtag in a 
regular, non-grandfathered tag based solely on its length and position 
within the tag, without having to consult the Registry.  This is a basic 
requirement.

I almost included "no-nn" and "no-nb" as examples of violating the 
syntax of RFC 4646, but deleted them at the last second because this had 
already been mentioned on the list, and I thought it would not be 
necessary to call out Leif in this way.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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