Re: [Ltru] Re: Re: proto-draft-10

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> Okay, then we might agree to disagree.  The main difference between
> "liaden" and "i-liaden" is that the former allows "liaden-Hant-fonupa"
> while the latter has to be used as is.

Quite so.

> There are no registered languages, so what's the point of allowing
> the full set of BCP 47 features for them ?

Because if and when we need them, there's no reason they
shouldn't interoperate with the rest of the system.

> For cases like i-default I don't miss any default-Hant-fonupa
> opportunity.

i-default is very special.

> As explained earlier  5*8( ALPHA )  limits implementation freedom if
> there would be ever a variant and a language using the same subtag.

Rules for the first subtag don't apply to later subtags, period.
The fact that you'd like them all to be unique doesn't make it so.

-- 
Take two turkeys, one goose, four               John Cowan
cabbages, but no duck, and mix them             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
together. After one taste, you'll duck          cowan@ccil.org
soup the rest of your life.
        --Groucho

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