RE: [Ltru] RE: duel(ing) tags

Shawn wrote:

Its just my experience
> that people don't really always pay that much attention, so
> they might use both.  I was merely suggesting that robust
> applications might want to recognize both forms, even if one
> was "illegal".

But if we already know that is what people will do (which is the case) and
if we are to use extended language subtags with the inclusion of 639-3
within the registry why not include a way to catch the "illegal" tags that
is easy for applications to implement?   I see more use than harm in using
extended language subtags and deprecating the individual 639-3 codes to
facilitate matching.  This can be documented within 4646bis.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Steele [mailto:Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 10 October 2007 21:30
> To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; addison@yahoo-inc.com
> Cc: ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: duel(ing) tags
>
> > > I definitely am against providing both tagging options.
>
> > But where is the harm in including cmn in the registry and then
> > deprecating in favour of zh-cmn?  As stated previously, this would
> > catch those who unwittingly tag with any 639-3 code and are
> unaware of
> > macrolanguages and 4646bis.
>
> I wasn't suggesting registering both.  Its just my experience
> that people don't really always pay that much attention, so
> they might use both.  I was merely suggesting that robust
> applications might want to recognize both forms, even if one
> was "illegal".
>
> - Shawn
>
>
>

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