Re: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films (was: Re: el truth?)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand scripsit:

> However, they ARE guaranteed to conflict with other private use of those 
> codes.
> 
> Don't standardize private-use codes - not even in an "industry-wide 
> agreement". It hurts.

I think that use of private tags by a group is precisely what they are
for.  If private tags can't even be used by private agreement (between
film people), they are useless.

> i-silent is no longer available for public registration, methinks.

Technically it still is, since we are in the RFC 3066 regime.  In the
RFC 3066bis regime, the equivalent would be simply "silent", a non-639
language subtag.

> und-silent would be a valid code, if "silent" is registered as a variant 
> subtag with "und" as its prefix.

Yes, that is registerable in both regimes.  It's a little paradoxical, though,
since "und" represents ignorance on the part of the tagger, to qualify
ignorance with something specific.  OTOH, people in silent films are
generally speaking in some language, but viewers don't know or care what it is.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@reutershealth.com
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev

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