Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang

Martin Duerst 2008-05-18 03.45:

> I'm opposed to allowing both extlang and independent tags (i.e. both
> zh-yue and yue), but if that's what we as a WG decide, I can live
> with it.

I would *prefer* both to be allowed. However, I think one should be 
required to choose between

    * EITHER to use the macrolanguage tag as first subtag and then to
      "sub qualify" the macrolanguage tag with a encompassed language
      tag. Region tag would here be forbidden.
    * OR to use the encompassed language subtag as the first subtag, and
      then to "sub qualify" it with the region subtag.
    * The above means that 'zh-cmn' and 'cmn-tw' would be legal. While
      'zh-cmn-tw' would be illegal/deprecated/forbidden.

The "macrolanguage-extlang" (e.g. 'zh-yue') *SHOULD* be used when one 
*wishes* to use the macrolanguage info for fallback! But if one do not 
want to express any such recommended fallback, then dropping the 
macrolanguage subtag (writing instead "yue" or "yue-script") is the 
right choie. (Implementations *MAY* still use it the macrolanguage info 
for fallback, though.)

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 one forms the tag using the 'macrolanguage-encompassed' construct, 
then no region information can be stated (according to the EITHER/OR 
rule I suggested above.) The use of  the 'macrolanguage-encompassed' 
contstruct means that the encompassed language information is being 
considerred more relevant information than the region code value.

Regards,
Leif Halvard Silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru