comments on the draft - extensions

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Peter Constable scripsit:

> Maybe there is a particular plan for the future that the authors have in
> mind, and perhaps a good plan. But I think it's only reasonable that
> there be at least some discussion of what kinds of future extensions
> might be considered appropriate, whether there is any concern of
> inappropriate extensions getting created ("courtyard" codes?), and
> whether there's any concern over every RFC 3066bis consumer needing to
> accept whatever extensions might come along.

I agree, and ceterum censeo that if these tags are to be used, originators
MUST sort them into alphabetical order (with "x" last, however).

An unrelated point: given the existence of "-x-", I don't see the
necessity of reserving all language-variety tags beginning with "x"
as well.  If you want "en-us-xboston", use "en-us-x-boston" instead;
similarly, if you have "en-Latin-xnyc-f-Arial" (Ghu forbid!) then use
"en-Latin-f-Arial-x-nyc" instead.  There are probably quite a few dialect
names in the Ethnologue beginning with "x", and there is no reason to
deny them the most appropriate label.

-- 
John Cowan                              jcowan at reutershealth.com
http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
                Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
                Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.  --Cousin James