Indonesian and extlang...
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Jan 1 04:09:07 CET 2010
John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
>> In the (many times repeated) production of the RFC 5645 Registry,
>> only newly created language subtags were considered as candidates for
>> extlangs. Existing language subtags were not examined as part of
>> this process.
> Almost. Minangkabau is part of 639-2, and was added in 2005, but it
> has an extlang tag.
Hmm. That would be a mistake on my part in putting together 5645. I'll
have to figure out what went wrong. Possibly I skipped over it because
of the infamous "zh-min" problem.
Besides the working instructions in 5645, that would violate point
12.C.4 in 5646 ("'Extlang' records MUST NOT be created for items already
in the registry"). I suspect it's too late to take it back now, because
the expanded Registry has been out for five months now and someone could
have tagged content as "ms-min".
> However, the case against ms-ind for me is that Indonesian shouldn't
> be 'id' in one context and 'ind' in another.
No argument there. And we do have point 12.A to back that up.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages