jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Apr 12 18:19:38 CEST 2005
Michael Everson scripsit:
> >Currently these tags are syntactically correct but have no defined
> Need we define them?
For process reasons we cannot yet define tags that involve 639-3 codes.
> >The expectation is that the former will become valid when ISO 639-3
> >reaches IS status, and that zh-nan-Hans-CN will be the valid form of
> >the latter, since "wuu" and "nan" are the 639-3 codes for Wu and
> >Minnan respectively.
> Then we would deprecate some of the 3066 tags in favour of 639-3?
Indeed. For instance, i-bnn (Bunun) can be deprecated in favor of
bnn, i-tao in favor of tao, and cel-gaulish in favor of either xtg
(Transalpine) or xcg (Cisalpine). The 639-3 codes are fully productive in
the language-script-region-variant scheme; their grandfathered equivalents
The case of the zh-* tags is more involved. In 639-3 terms, zh is a
macrolanguage code (i.e., a code representing multiple, closely-related
individual languages that are deemed in some usage contexts to be a
single language). The intention is to encode languages belonging to
a macrolanguage using a two-part subtag: thus Minnan would be encoded
as zh-nan (thus deprecating zh-min-nan) and Mandarin as zh-cmn (thus
deprecating zh-guoyu). Again, the new forms would be fully productive,
the older forms not.
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
More information about the Ietf-languages