Language Identifier List Criteria

[Martin Duerst]

At 08:34 04/12/21, Mark Davis wrote:

 >Suppose I have a protocol ID that distinguishes categories of people by
 >combining hair-color with nationality. Then "Samoan, blond" is perfectly
 >well defined. The fact that there are no existing examples does *NOT* mean
 >that it is "ambiguous", "not meaningful", or "not well-defined". And let's
 >suppose that all Danes were blond. Then "Dane, blond" would still be well
 >defined. The fact that it happens to have the same current denotation as
 >"Dane" does *NOT* mean that it is "ambiguous",  "not meaningful", or "not
 >well-defined".

There may also be the case, so to speak, that not really all Danes
are blond, but most Danes are blond to the extent that if you just
say "Dane", you imply "blond".

This will apply very much to script tags in language tags; although
most but not all English is written in Latin script, it would be
a bad idea to recommend that everybody suddenly start to use
en-latn (or whatever the actual subtag was).

Regards,    Martin.