Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c
harald at alvestrand.no
Wed Dec 13 21:50:16 CET 2006
--On 13. desember 2006 09:56 -0800 Mark Davis <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
> 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
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