Criteria for languages?
randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Tue Dec 1 21:06:05 CET 2009
> From: "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?
> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
> > The assumption is that it is better to introduce a (potentially
> > lingering) imprecision in the tagging of legacy data, rather than to
> > cause any once-accurate tags on legacy data to become incorrect.
> That's a strong argument for 639-3/RA to do what they've been urged to
> do: change "lav" to a macrolanguage and introduce "lvs" for Standard
> Latvian and "ltg" for Latgalian. But it doesn't address my question.
> What I'm asking is: if proposal 2009-048 passes the RA, is it better
> for interoperability if people who tag new data that they know to be in
> standard Latvian use the "lav" tag or the new "lvs" tag?
If one travels that path, "lvs" would be the better choice for tagging data
precisely. It's a bit like the 'cmn' / 'zh' situation.
I wonder whether treating Latgalian as a "marked form" (and making
it a variant of Latvian) would make sense. Any thoughts from people
who speak either of them?
More information about the Ietf-languages