Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch (was: Requeststhathave been on hold)

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Wed Aug 12 00:13:20 CEST 2009

Hi.  I was hoping that [gem] would have become something like a macro-language (now that 'other' is removed from its definition).  Apparently it is not doing so.


However, I am fine with registering a prefix of [de] and then adding either of the other two prefixes ([sxu] or [vmf]).  (But again this involves registering two prefixes, first [de] and then a second more specific prefix--which Kent Karlsson seems to object to doing???)


And, if there are two variants of Erzgebirgisch, then I do not see why we would object to having both of the other two prefixes.  


However, if Thomas Goldammer has only one variant he wants a subtag registered for, and if he can decide which prefix it should have, then . . . I am fine with this single prefix.


But I'm willing to go with whatever the list decides to do.




C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at 

 Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at 
Tue Aug 11 20:58:16 CEST 2009 > I agree with Randy here.

> And as a matter of principle I would object to using a collection code
> as a registered "Prefix" for any subtag. I argued for the inclusion in
> the registry of the information that a code is a collection code just
> to ward off the use of collection codes (recognising that we could not
> really deprecate them, as they are usable in "lack-of-precise info" cases).

> As for the "individual language" prefix alternatives here, please choose> *one* only, the one most appropriate.

>    /kent k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list