Mark Davis ⌛
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Sep 10 05:58:34 CEST 2009
I think it is cleaner, simpler, and much more likely to be used if we just
have an additional variant tag, like "mactrans".
If there is ever a strong use case for distinguishing subvariants, that can
be taken up at a later time. I'm not convinced it will -- one would have to
have some reasonable use cases.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 20:43, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
> > I think this is a good use case for a BCP 47 extension; translation
> > source information is closely associated with BCP 47 language tags,
> > such that it would make sense to pack them into a single string, yet
> > distinct enough from the language/origin/variant model to not fit into
> > it well.
> Good points all.
> > To be sure, the administrative barrier against adding a new extension
> > is *much* higher than that against adding a new variant, although the
> > required RFC will be much less complex than BCP 47.
> I hereby offer to help with the RFC if anyone wants to do this, but I do
> not volunteer to moderate any mailing lists.
> > (This should silence Doug's whinging on the subject of extensions.)
> I hereby promise to whinge less if this goes through.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages