Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requeststhathave been on hold)

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 12 00:13:20 CEST 2009



Hi.  I was hoping that [gem] would have become something like a macro-language (now that 'other' is removed from its definition).  Apparently it is not doing so.

 

However, I am fine with registering a prefix of [de] and then adding either of the other two prefixes ([sxu] or [vmf]).  (But again this involves registering two prefixes, first [de] and then a second more specific prefix--which Kent Karlsson seems to object to doing???)

 

And, if there are two variants of Erzgebirgisch, then I do not see why we would object to having both of the other two prefixes.  

 

However, if Thomas Goldammer has only one variant he wants a subtag registered for, and if he can decide which prefix it should have, then . . . I am fine with this single prefix.

 

But I'm willing to go with whatever the list decides to do.


 

Best,

 

C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at hotmail.com 

 Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se 
Tue Aug 11 20:58:16 CEST 2009 > I agree with Randy here.

> And as a matter of principle I would object to using a collection code
> as a registered "Prefix" for any subtag. I argued for the inclusion in
> the registry of the information that a code is a collection code just
> to ward off the use of collection codes (recognising that we could not
> really deprecate them, as they are usable in "lack-of-precise info" cases).

> As for the "individual language" prefix alternatives here, please choose> *one* only, the one most appropriate.

>    /kent k

"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090811/901828fb/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list