New item in ISO 639-2 - Zaza
petercon at microsoft.com
Fri Aug 25 02:45:20 CEST 2006
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> The fallback problem has been considered paramount to this point, and
> was the reason for inventing extended language subtags in the first
My recollection is that the idea of extended language subtags was my idea, and that fallback was not the paramount reason why it occurred to me that we do that.
> That's a very good question, especially since -- despite the presence of
> a draft 639-3 table that considers Dimli and Kirmanjki to be separate
> languages -- the ISO 639 RAs-JAC has decided to combine them into one
> code element. It's no different from the German example.
If we were assuming 3066ter were already in place, it would be different: de has existed for a long time while zza is new.
But, what is the same about the two is that before you'd have a valid tag xxx and now the question becomes whether we allow a tag yy(y)-xxx for the same thing (either in addition to or as a replacement for the original).
My thought is: if a new macrolanguage yyy is added to 639 for which there are macrolanguage mappings to some entity xxx that pre-existed, or of macrolanguage mappings are added to some entity xxx that pre-existed (the two scenarios where this issue can arise), then we do not allow xxx to be used as an extlang; it can only be used as a primary subtag as it had before the change.
More information about the Ietf-languages