Indonesian and extlang...

[Doug Ewell]

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 ­