Variant subtag proposal: Høgnorsk variety of Norwegian

Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-iua at
Sat Jan 2 01:14:23 CET 2010

Leif Halvard Silli, Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:04:23 +0100:
> Kent Karlsson, Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:57:57 +0100:
>> Den 2010-01-01 22.26, skrev "Thorgeir Holm" <thorgeirholm at>:
>>> <hermer Michael Everson frå 01.01.2010 21:50>
>>>>> The macro 'no' is simply a political creation, and people fill it
>>>>> with whatever ideas they have about this concept.
>>>>> It is vital that 'no-hognorsk' be valid, the practical
>>>>> circumstances in Norwegian language tagging being as chaotic as
>>>>> they are.
>>>> Vital?
>>> Of course: if 'no' is valid for 'nb' and 'nn', for whatever reasons
>>> people might have to tag them thus (and they do), the same should apply
>>> to -hognorsk.
>> If the tagger knows that the text is in Høgnorsk, then the tagger also
>> knows that it is nynorsk, not bokmål. There is no reason to ever use
>> "no-hognorsk".
> So tell my why that line of argumentation doesn't apply to Chinese?

Another issue: For example 'et' recently became recognized as a 
macrolanguage subtag with the meaning 'Estonian', previously having 
been a ordinary language subtag for Estonian.

 So is there suddenly no more reason to use 'et' then? Should one use 
the entirely new 'ekk' (for Standard Estonian) instead, if one knows 
that it is Standard Estonian? I suppose it could impact the willingness 
to switch the scope of language subtags to "macrolanguage" if, as a 
consequence, this causes an immediate restriction on the legitimacy of 
continuing to use the - now - macrolanguage scoped tag.
leif halvard silli

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list