<div>A general comment; we don't particularly have a "rage for order" - if some of these things are ill-defined, then we'd be perfectly happy with Deprecated. For any of them that are actually useful, we'd like a regular language tag.</div>
<div><br><div>Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:08, John Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Mark Davis â?? scripsit:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: cel-gaulish<br>
> Description: Gaulish<br>
> Added: 2001-05-25<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: xtg // most likely Gaulish being meant<br>
<br>
</div>Someone should probably ask ISO 639-3 for a macrolanguage code element<br>
covering Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaulish.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sounds reasonable.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: en-GB-oed<br>
> Description: English, Oxford English Dictionary spelling<br>
> Added: 2003-07-09<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: en-oxedict // with proposed new variant<br>
<br>
</div>I understand rage for order, but I'm not sure this is worth changing.<br>
It's a highly specialized tag with very little usage, and if we replace<br>
it, the replacement will have even less.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't want to make any suppositions about value or usage - I'm sure that among the 8K primary language subtags, there are probably dozens (hundreds? thousands?) with less usage.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: i-default<br>
> Description: Default Language<br>
> Added: 1998-03-10<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: und // I doubt that this group would approve this, but<br>
> it is probably what we'll map to, so just FYI<br>
<br>
</div>"en" would be a more sensible mapping, given that RFC 2277 requires that<br>
i-default text be understandable by anglophones.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh, boy, that is wild! Based on that RFC (<a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2277.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2277.txt</a>), it really is a special purpose variant of English.</div>
<div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: medium; white-space: pre-wrap; ">Messages in Default Language MUST be understandable by an English-speaking person, since English is the language which, worldwide, the greatest number of people will be able to get adequate help in interpreting when working with computers.</span></div>
<div>" </div><div>Maybe the best choice would be to define a variant tag: en-idefault.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: i-enochian<br>
> Description: Enochian<br>
> Added: 2002-07-03<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: xxx // Ask for new code from 639-3. This is a bizarre<br>
> invented language, but there is precedent for invented languages.<br>
<br>
</div>Agreed.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: i-mingo<br>
> Description: Mingo<br>
> Added: 1997-09-19<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: see-mingo // Ask for new variant from this group<br>
<br>
</div>Agreed.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> %%<br>
> Type: grandfathered<br>
> Tag: zh-min<br>
> Description: Min, Fuzhou, Hokkien, Amoy, or Taiwanese<br>
> Added: 1999-12-18<br>
> Deprecated: 2009-07-29<br>
> ***Preferred-Value: nan // since nan includes Min Chinese<br>
<br>
</div>Vice versa: nan is a subtype of Min Chinese. This is a useless stub<br>
and should just be left alone (see above on "rage for order").<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If it is not ill-defined, then the best course would be to have a regular code for it. (see above under 'usage').</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
John Cowan <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a> <a href="http://www.ccil.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://www.ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>
Historians aren't constantly confronted with people who carry on<br>
self-confidently about the rule against adultery in the sixth amendment to<br>
the Declamation of Independence, as written by Benjamin Hamilton. Computer<br>
scientists aren't always having to correct people who make bold assertions<br>
about the value of Objectivist Programming, as examplified in the HCNL<br>
entities stored in Relaxational Databases. --Mark Liberman<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div>