LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION FORM
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Jan 10 02:19:35 CET 2008
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> >Agreed: we do not have and did not foresee limiting the description
> >field to what ISO says. We can add more information via Descriptions
> >if they do not narrow, which this doesn't.
> Sure, but is there a problem if 639 does things that augment or
> duplicate or contradict what is in our registry?
Obviously there'd be a problem if we ended up with a contradiction. As long as we do not force a narrowing of semantic scope (e.g. if we were to try to say that gsw is for the Alsation variety *only*), and as long as we do not broaden the scope (e.g. if we were to say that gsw can be used for Dutch as well), then there should not be any contradictions that arise: ISO 639 can't narrow the semantic scope, and if we don't broaden beyond what they say they'll never have a narrower semantic than we have.
More information about the Ietf-languages