Variant subtag: clarification briefly sought.
scripts20 at uk2.net
Tue Oct 4 12:10:36 CEST 2005
> Peter Constable scripsit [Re: el-latn, ru-latn, and related possibilities]
>> My vote, therefore, would be to simply treat specific transliteration
>> schemes via the variant subtag as defined in RFC 3066bis.
> I'm sold. +1
It may be enough. It depends what you want to do with the information that
accompanies the tags.
Probably when displaying text, el-Latn may be enough.
If there is a need to process text in el-Latn, which follows certain
rules, it may not be enough.
OK: possibly there isn't yet a requirement for processing such text as
yet, so I concede on that point.
In passing, I haven't read the information about the "variant" subtag as
defined in RFC 3066bis, so I would be grateful for some clarification.
Do a notional
Is there a default
which therefore has certain characteristics which
does not have?
I would be grateful for any clarification on
as the topic has been introduced.
More information about the Ietf-languages