no linguistic content tag (was RE: Mandarin Chinese, Simplified Script)

Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Jun 15 22:09:25 CEST 2005

> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison.phillips at]

> "No linguistic content" as opposed to the empty tag, that is, a
declaration of the
> content not being composed of natural language?
> I'm not sure I like the idea. The empty tag, while not quite the same
level of
> declaration, implies this well-enough.

But doesn't work in an application that requires some value to be
entered in a given field, or if the tags happen to be presented in a UI.
It also doesn't distinguish between "not applicable" and "data not yet

> We already have troublesome codes like MUL
> and UND. A "NOT" code would represent Yet Another Special Code. I like
the empty
> tag much more for a situation like this. "Information items" that
contain natural
> language generally should be separate from non-language bearing items.
> Imagine "not-Latn-DE-1996"..... :-(

Just as I can imagine "und-Latn-DE-1996". One more special code isn't a
significant problem.

Peter Constable

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list