Zinh - Code for inherited script
textexin at xencraft.com
Thu Feb 26 07:10:12 CET 2009
I wouldn't worry about bytes either. I do worry about dilution making the registry much more difficult to use for its intended purpose than it needs to be.
A policy of accept everything is worse than a slippery slope, it’s a cliff.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:26 PM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: Zinh - Code for inherited script
Tex Texin <textexin at xencraft dot com> wrote:
> What is the point of having it at all?
As I see it, the main (and only) point of adding this subtag is that if
we don't, we get ourselves started down the slippery slope of
arbitrarily cherry-picking the core standards. Next thing you know,
someone would propose getting rid of region subtags like 'AQ' and 'BV',
and then someone else would target 'Zsym', and then someone else would
try to eliminate the collection language subtags, and the beat goes on.
The precedent set by singling out 'Zinh' for non-inclusion would be much
worse than having it chew up 91 bytes in the Registry.
For once, I won't argue against adding "do not use this subtag" comments
that the group and Reviewer agree on. Try to keep it short, though;
it's not a complicated message.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages