RE: [Ltru] Re: extlang

Is there a possibility of an encompassed language getting changed not to be encompassed? If "xxx" is a macrolanguage and "yyy" an encompassed "microlanguage" (to use Mark's term), I could perhaps see "xxx" getting deprecated, but "yyy" getting dissociated from "xxx"? It really shouldn't happen: there should have been *some* good reason for associated "yyy" with "xxx" in the first place, and that shouldn't go away.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:38 PM
To: Randy Presuhn
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: extlang

Randy Presuhn scripsit:

> If there is a real expectation that this will happen,

I think it will.

> this will be critical to the extlang discussion, due to the
> implications for stability in encoding.

I don't see why.  Stability says that once a language subtag,
always a language subtag: nothing is demoted to extlang subtag
status.  So languages that are encompassed in 639-2 today
have the same status (language subtag) as languages encompassed
in 639-3 later on.

The more serious case is when an encompassed language is no
longer encompassed or its macrolanguage is changed.
We'd be free to change the proposed Macrolanguage: field,
but the Prefix: field and Type: fields would have to remain.

--
Dream projects long deferred             John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
usually bite the wax tadpole.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --James Lileks

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

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