Results of Duplicate Busters Survey #2
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sun Sep 7 01:29:23 CEST 2008
Michael Everson wrote:
> Frank, please state your preference, so we can be done
> with this.
After reading the follow-up thread: The UNIQUE concept
wrt descriptions is clear, I support it.
But the form of language tags used for years in Internet
protocols is based on alpha2 OR alpha3 language codes as
found in ISO 639-1 or 639-2, plus the ISO 3166-1 country
codes (until RFC 3066).
RFC 4646 fixed an ugly problem with ISO 3166-1 stability
(using the UN codes as escape hatch), and added scripts
in a backwards compatible way (using the Suppress-Script
What you are talking about is a *new *problem if or when
4646bis in essence replaces ISO 639-1/2 by ISO 639-3,
again in a backwards compatible way, hopefully. But all
existing tags are based on ISO 639-1/2.
Therefore "original" descriptions should be preserved in
the registry somehow, where it is no obvious difference
like adding "(macrolanguage)".
One way to add any non-trivial "original" description is
just copying it. If that would result in a conflict wrt
UNIQUE another way is to note the "original" description
in a comment.
IMO decreeing that RFC 4646 and older tags are obsoleted
by whatever ISO 639-3 says is no option. There will be
applications limiting themselves to RFC 4646 languages,
all ISO 639-1/2 warts included. Interpreting such tags
as defined in ISO 639-3 can result in unclear gibberish.
The registry should offer a hint where that can happen.
Users should not be forced to compare source standards
to figure such oddities out. The hint can be condensed
in a "(*)" or similar, if 4646bis defines "(*)" to be a
standard "there be dragons" indicator. Users could then
look up the technical details on SIL or Wikipedia pages.
More information about the Ietf-languages