ontology nits (was: acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM)
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sat Aug 30 22:44:31 CEST 2008
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
> Why want the subtags' names to be hierarchical
> (to contain genealogy) at all?
It depends on your goals. For a Slovenian variant
we have "subvariants". You can talk about sl-rozaj
including its subsets sl-rozaj-osojs, sl-rozaj-njiva,
sl-rozal-lipaw, sl-rozaj-solba, and sl-rozaj-biske.
FWIW you can even talk about sl-rozaj-1994,
sl-rozaj-biske-1994, etc. And if you are seriously
angry try sl-rozaj-biske-1994-fonipa (but arguably
fonipa and 1994 are mutually exclusive here).
The main thing is that sl-rozaj is at the root of
the "complete" subtree. Actually fonipa should be
no variant, but so far nobody bothered to create an
extension for this generic concept.
> As far as I understood, there's no such requirement
> for the subtag
Yes, it's not required, but it's obviously allowed.
> One-level index seems to be quite enough ("for
> everyone" :).
We're in violent agreement here, but Mark's use case
is "complete subtree", apparently.
More information about the Ietf-languages