Sample IANA language subtag registry

[Doug Ewell]

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at jtcsv dot com> wrote:

> I looked this over, and recall now what it is. Superseded simply means
that
> they are now expressible with the generative grammar instead of
needing to
> be "whole tag" registrations. They remain, however, perfectly valid
(as are
> all 3066 registered tags). So "superseded" may be too misleading a
term to
> use. I'm not sure there is a good single-word term to use for "3066
tags
> that no longer require separate registration". Any thoughts?

Ira McDonald <imcdonald at sharplabs dot com> suggested:

> How about the term 'redundant'?  Which seems to be what you mean.

and John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth dot com> suggested:

> "Unnecessary".

Fair enough.  Do these redundant, unnecessary tags actually need to be
listed or "marked" anywhere, since they will be defined by the
generative grammar?

The draft talks about such tags being "marked as 'superseded' by this
document."  It's not so much the word "superseded" I'm thinking about as
the "marking" mechanism.  Under RFC 3066bis, one could say az-Arab or
az-Latn (formerly registered tags) just as easily as en-Latn or en-Kana
(never before registered or valid).  Does the registry need to mention
the existence of formerly registered tags that are now part of the
grammar?  What would be the benefit of doing so?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/