Prefixes for use with -signed
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Sun Feb 26 08:00:43 CET 2006
Here are some alternative ideas for the Prefix fields associated with
the proposed variant subtag "variant".
(1) Instead of mirroring the 16 entries in Michael's list, we could
reduce the list of prefixes to 11 by eliminating region subtags:
Prefix: af
Prefix: da
Prefix: en
Prefix: fi
Prefix: fr
Prefix: ja
Prefix: nl
Prefix: no
Prefix: pt
Prefix: sv
Prefix: zh
This means a tagger could use "en-US-signed", "en-GB-signed",
"en-AU-signed", or "en-BV-signed" with equal conformance. It grants
full Recommended status to previously unmentioned varieties like
"en-AU-signed" without changing the registration. It makes it incumbent
on the tagger to avoid using "en-BV-signed", which does not represent a
real SSL, or "en-signed", which is highly ambiguous, even though these
are also Recommended prefixes. This last is probably the greatest risk.
(2) Since "signed" is really intended for a multitude of languages,
unlike "1901" or "rozaj", we could simply add a single, representative
prefix, or none at all. Section 3.5 allows this (second paragraph after
Figure 5, last sentence). The result would be that "signed" could be
used with literally any language subtag or combination of subtags, which
allows ludicrous tags like "egy-signed" but is no worse in this regard
than "egy-BV".
--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list