That's based on a mistaken assumption (see my mail to others). Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Peter Constable</b> <<a href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com">petercon@microsoft.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> From: John Cowan [mailto:<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org
</a>]<br><br><br>> As for hy-hyewest, I think it's awful.<br><br>While it may look aweful, an advantage of this is that we can document precisely what is meant by "hyewest" (or whatever form of subtag one might want) -- that is, it is the Armeanian variety spoken by the Armenian diaspora.
<br><br>But there is no way we can document how "western" ought to be interpreted in all of the combinations it is used (unless we want to allow multiple "western" variant entries, one for each prefix to be documented).
<br><br>And going back to a paper Gary Simons and I wrote back in 2000, documenting what tags are meant to denote is important. It won't help anybody if people start using "foo-western" but there are widely differing opinions as to what that refers to.
<br><br><br><br>Peter Constable<br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br></blockquote></div><br>