LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Unified Cornish

[Doug Ewell]

I don't see what the big deal is about these subtags.  Their scope is 
clearly defined, they are not associated with pejorative nicknames or 
obscure year numbers, and the requester seems to be familiar with the 
needs of the user community.

I'm not sure why it is OK to have two similar-looking subtags ('fonipa' 
and 'fonupa') but not OK to have three, or eventually six, for these 
Cornish variations.  That's why we have Description fields, so that 
users will know which subtag means what.  'am' and 'arn' are pretty 
similar-looking too.

It's nice to have subtags with mnemonic value, but apparently if we go 
that route we are stuck with 'standard' for the standard variety, and 
I'm sure we don't want to go back over the whole argument about 
generic-looking subtags that aren't really generic.  Some subtags are 
simply going to have less mnemonic value than others -- wait until the 
639-3 subtags come and we have things like 'aaa' for Ghotuo.

I see no problem with corXX or kernXX, and could live with XXcor.  Let's 
not hold these requests up over petty squabbles over the exact form of 
the subtags.  This is NOT analogous to the current squabble over Pinyin, 
which is a fundamental disagreement about what the subtag represents.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ