zh-****-** tags

Doug Ewell dewell at adelphia.net
Sun Mar 20 20:14:53 CET 2005

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> Chinese is not directly related to Macau and Hong Kong?
> Exactly, like Rome is not the same as VA.  If you'd need two
> or three variants of Provencal you wouln't (ab)use AD or MC
> to identify these differences in _registered_ RfC 3066 tags.

Nobody has suggested doing this.

> Maybe you're tempted to use AD and MC for this purpose under
> the draft rules.  But so far it's only a draft, it doesn't
> justify to register numerous ab-cdef-CC tags under the 3066
> rules.

The tags are based on the assumption that *Chinese as spoken in Macao*
and *Chinese as spoken in Hong Kong*, among others, are useful
linguistic concepts in and of themselves, as opposed to Chinese with no
region specified, and that tags are needed to capture these concepts
together with an indication of the script.

>> Who's trying to register all theoretical permutations?
> Certainly not me, I don't ask for de-LI-1901, de-LI-1996, etc.

Neither did anyone else.

You had written, "de-LI, de-BE, and some others are also not
unreasonable, quite the contrary.  Dito zh-US and others.  But I don't
see why that's a reason to register all theoretical permutations under
3066 rules."  Peter responded to the implication that the proponents of
10 zh-tags in were trying to register "all theoretical permutations."

>> They would not be considered "grandfathered".
> If LTRU decides to use language-CC-script-variant for "better"
> 3066-compatibility any language-script-CC is grandfathered.

But this is not likely to happen.  Nobody else is seriously challenging
the order of subtags.

> Not that I want this, I'd prefer to shift the CC to the right
> or better to get rid of it if the proposed order is changed.

LTRU will not get rid of country codes as region subtags.  I suggest you
let go of this.

> The important point is, it's a draft, anything is possible.
> All we know for sure is that draft 8 failed in a "last call".

We know much more than that.  We know that an IETF Working Group has
been formed, with a charter and chairs and ADs and the whole package,
and that an Internet-Draft for the structure of the registry has been
published, and that another I-D for matching is on the way.  We also
know that discussion of LTRU matters belongs on the LTRU list.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list