hakka + xiang (was: Request for variant subtag "boont")
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Aug 29 22:48:06 CEST 2006
Addison Phillips wrote:
> "hakka" and "xiang" would almost certainly be rejected,
> since they will be handled by ISO 639-3 codes shortly.
We had a rush of Hans and Hant 3066-registrations shortly
before 3066bis was approved, that's no compelling reason
to reject these variants.
If the intention is to clean up grandfathered zh-tags it
could in theory make sense. In practice this won't work,
there's no way to get rid of the zh-min cruft.
If zh is forced to introduce any grandfathered tag, then
removing hakka and xiang from the picture is pointless,
we'd end up with 2 redundant + 2 variants (all deprecated
when the 693-tags are added) instead of 2 grandfathered.
No real benefit for parsing zh tags: You have to look
for min and guoyu anyway, and at that point you can also
handle hakka and xiang.
The boont + scouse cases are similar, if a parser has to
handle en-GB-oed anyway, then removing boont and scouse
doesn't help much.
Maybe you could say that "oed" only affects en-GB, and
boont and scouse variants would allow to parse all other
en-tags (excl. en-GB) in the main code path. That's an
implementation detail, should it affect the registry ?
More information about the Ietf-languages