Vanity subtags (was: Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF))

Frank Ellermann nobody at
Wed Dec 12 19:15:38 CET 2007

Doug Ewell wrote:

> Remember that there once were concerns about people not taking
> Unicode seriously if it encoded the Klingon alphabet.

The "once" bit is news for me.  If it were a new "registered
language" you'd find me deep in reading RFCs about appeals ;-)

> At the time this was written, we (LTRU) might not have 
> adequately foreseen the potential for the inventor of a 
> language, script, or orthography to propose a subtag for
> his or her invention.

We have solutions for languages (arguably not the best, in
the sense of "I argue, everybody else is bored"), scripts,
region codes, and extensions.

Maybe RFC 4646 is a bit weak on variants, it could turn out
as crackpot loophole, unless we trust that this review list
won't let this happen.  
> This is why Wikipedia has a policy against original research
> and entries for "things made up in school one day": the 
> accuracy and importance of the material can't be confirmed.

Yes, plus tons of notability guidelines.  As you said earlier
about the sl dialects, <>
(original research) is no taboo here.  

> I'm not sure what the solution is, or whether a solution
> can reasonably be written into RFC 4646bis.

Agreed.  It might help if 4646bis at least acknowledges that
this is a problem to be solved on a case by case base here.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list