petercon at microsoft.com
Sat Sep 28 19:59:01 CEST 2013
True, to that extent.
However, if you receive content tagged "hup-unifon", that plus the LSTR doesn't tell you enough to know what the script is so that you can make processing decisions, such as choosing an appropriate font.
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: September 28, 2013 1:21 AM
To: Mark Davis ☕
Cc: Peter Constable; ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: Unifon script?
Mark Davis ☕ scripsit:
> We could use “und-Latn”, since 'und' is what we use where the language
> tag would be unspecified.
No, that would mean that it would be appropriate to use this subtag only in tags of the form "und-Latn-unifon" and not (say) en-unifon or en-Latn-unifon. "Prefix:" is syntactic, not semantic.
But in any case, all this hardly matters. The problem with, say, "en-Cyrl-unifon" is that it's nonsense, and in general prefixes (other than those used with macrolanguages) don't attempt to protect us from nonsense. They provide guidance of good usage, not a prohibition on bad usage.
Cash registers don't really add and subtract; John Cowan
they only grind their gears. cowan at ccil.org
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
they only obey the laws of physics. --Unknown
More information about the Ietf-languages