Variant subtag: clarification briefly sought.

[John Clews]

> 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
el-Latn
and
el-Latn-[variant]
actually differ?

What would
el-Latn-[variant]
add to
el-Latn?

Is there a default
el-Latn
which therefore has certain characteristics which
el-Latn-[variant]
does not have?

I would be grateful for any clarification on
-[variant]
as the topic has been introduced.

John Clews

--