Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c

Harald Alvestrand harald at
Wed Dec 13 21:50:16 CET 2006

--On 13. desember 2006 09:56 -0800 Mark Davis <mark.davis at> 

> The main point I was trying to make is that with generative tags people
> can form combinations that (a) are meaningful, and (b) don't require
> registration. That is the whole purpose of RFC4646. We explicitly don't
> weed out the empty combinations like en-Cyrl-AQ, because as long as the
> meaning of the subtags is well-defined, it is interchangeable.

And I thought the purpose of 4646 was to update 3066 to give a sensible 
handling of the script tags. I guess I missed something.

FTR, I *still* think that allowing generative subtags was a mistake from 
the start (made in ISO 646, adopted by RFC 1766, for which I am solidly to 
blame), and that generative script subtags was a mistake squared. The 
suppress-script scheme is a means of undoing some of the damage from 
generative subtags.

I'd hate to go for the mistake cubed.

[BTW, another set of generative subtags should be a policy matter, not a 
registration matter. Take it to the ltru list.]


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list