Alemanic & Swiss German

Doug Ewell dewell at
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 
>> days.
> 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 mailing list