Principles of Operation (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REQUEST FORM,
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 30 17:51:47 CET 2008
I'd like to see Ciaran's proposal discussed; will wait a bit to hear what Ciaran and John decide [de] includes.
--C. E. Whitehead> From: dewell at roadrunner.com> To: ietf-languages at iana.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:28:42 -0800 > CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:> > > > or else, (2), using [gem] which already at ethnologue indicates many > > of the varieties in question (Low Saxon, Franconian, Standard German; > > in the language subtag registry it is listed as indicating all > > varieties of German
[that is, other than Standard German, Pennsylvania Dutch, etc., sorry for this omission on my part]> > > Ciarán and John > are working out what they feel this
[de] (I inserted this for clarification, since I've cut up the email a bit)
> means, in a world where some people > speak varieties of what they would consider "German" and others speak a > dialect closely related to German but which they would not consider > "German."
Great! I look forward to seeing the results of Ciaran's and John's work!
> > so I would assume that would include Upper Saxon for which there is no > > code)--> > There is a code (actually a code element). There is not yet a subtag, > but one day there will be, if RFC 4646bis is approved.
Yes, I understand there will be, one day, when/if RFC 4646bis goes through . . .
But the question is, should we wait for [sxu]? Or is [de] or [gem] a suitable prefix?
I still like Ciaran's proposal and want to see it discussed.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com> > --> Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages