Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Don Osborn scripsit:

> It may be that for some purposes, localizers and content developers
> may prefer a broader tag than what is available in ISO 639-3, while in
> other cases find that the latter fits the need. In some cases perhaps
> the optimal tags do not exist yet. What this says to me is that there
> is a need both for flexibility and for various ways to define and
> refine relationships among tags.

There is no dispute about the usability of broader tags from 639-2
or 639-3 (or the forthcoming 639-5, presumably).  The dispute is
solely about the best way to represent those languages which are
treated as single in 639-2 and multiple in 639-3: whether a compound
or a simple subtag should be used.

-- 
John Cowan                                cowan@ccil.org
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, LOTR:FOTR
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru