Alemanic & Swiss German
dewell at adelphia.net
Thu Dec 7 08:00:57 CET 2006
John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>> However, were we to be concerned, RFC 4646 gives us the option of
>> labeling the Mutsun text as as nai-x-mutsun, or applying to make
>> nai-mutsun legal, which I'm sure Everson would approve in a couple
> We would strongly discourage either of those, and ask you to wait for
> 4646bis and the tag "css" for Southern Ohlone, of which Mutsun is a
> dialect. (You could, of course, go ahead and use it unofficially; a
> standard, like a drink, affects you only if you accept it.)
I, on the other hand, would rather see him use a private-use tag than a
well-formed but invalid language subtag. We may think we know what
subtags ISO 639-3, and hence the future Registry, will contain, but it's
not final until it's final. Remember what happened to Frank's "utter
dubious" constructed-language code elements like "orc". What if someone
used that, figuring the data had made it past a million eyes already?
That's why we wait.
It wouldn't be that difficult for David to tag his single Mutsun
document as "nai-x-mutsun" or "x-mutsun" and then, if he chooses, retag
it as "css" or even "css-x-mutsun" once RFC 4646bis goes live.
I agree that "mutsun" should not be registered as a variant under "nai".
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages