Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050419005005.02f20180@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:28:48 +0200
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050418214546.GF26788@skunk.reutershealth.com>
References: <20050418214546.GF26788@skunk.reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: Generic variant subtags in RFC 3066bis
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

On 23:45 18/04/2005, John Cowan said:
>This is a bit premature for both lists, but I wanted to float the idea to
>see if there are any objections to it.
>
>When the RFC 3066bis registry is up and running, I intend to propose some
>highly generic variant subtags which may be used with many languages.
>Some examples that come to mind are -northern, -southern, -eastern, -western,
>and -central for geographical dialects; -ancient and -middle for earlier
>versions of languages (-old being too short); and -highreg, -midreg, and 
>-lowreg
>for sociolinguistic registers.

As long as you do not come too much accross the need of "Suppress_variant" 
because conflicting with other generic names already being used in some 
particular case, this seems good. As long as users understand and want to 
use them, I certainly support this.
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages