Request for variant subtag: western
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Wed Aug 30 01:59:15 CEST 2006
John Cowan wrote:
> A variant subtag MAY have prefix information in the registry
> in order to guide its use.
[3rd bullet in the 2nd list of chapter 3.1]
| Prefix's field-value contains a language tag with which this
| subtag MAY be used to form a new language tag, perhaps with
| other subtags as well. This field MUST only appear in
| records whose 'Type' field-value is 'variant' or 'extlang'.
In other words you can still use the prefix without variant,
and optionally (MAY) with the variant.
[later in 3.1]
| the variant subtag '1996' has a Prefix field of "de". This
| means that tags starting with the sequence "de-" are
| appropriate with this subtag, so "de-Latg-1996" and
| "de-CH-1996" are both acceptable, while the tag "fr-1996" is
| an inappropriate choice.
So (ab)using existing variants as "generic" is inappropriate.
| Variant registration requests SHOULD include at least one
| "Prefix" field in the registration form.
To get a new generic variant without prefix you've to violate a
SHOULD. I don't see a good excuse why "western" should start
without prefix "hy". After that it's bound to "hy", you can
add other prefixes, but using it elsewhere is "inappropriate".
It's a nice standard. Now in AUTH48, I hope that Addison and
Mark kill the last "STRONGLY" while they're at it.
The plan to deprecate "min" _before_ a new Preferred-Value is
available is apparently explicitly forbidden, the only point
in time where adding a Preferred-Value is possible is together
with the deprecation, not later.
I wish all standards would be that clear.
More information about the Ietf-languages