language tag en-cutspell

[John Cowan]

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> The question is whether this orthography is suitably widely used or is just
> a small group's fancy.

Something in between, I'd say.  (Lots of variants, and for that matter
languages, aren't widely used.)  The Simplified Spelling Society has
been around for almost a century (it supports Cut Spelng, but not
exclusively), so this is no flash in the pan.

> It might be analogous to experimental encoding of
> text in Unicode... that is, would it be worthwhile to suggest en-x-cutspell
> first?

The trouble with that is that we then get a mixture of en-x-cutspell
and en-cutspell that has to be coped with till the end of time.
In general, I think private-use subtags should only be recommended
if we are rejecting a subtag definitively.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.