Add Likely Subtags first step

Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Sun Jan 25 11:10:38 CET 2015

Sounds like there is rough consensus on deprecating all of them, which is
the most important step.

Secondarily, it sounds like everything but i-default and 'enochian' could
have reasonable Preferred Values (if there is a single one) or an addition
to the Description (for multiple ones). Here's a collected proposal, with
my reasoning for the two special cases following.

TagDeprecatedPreferred-Value Or Descriptionen-GB-oedyyyy-mm-dden-oxford
yyyy-mm-ddsee-mingocel-gaulishyyyy-mm-ddsee xtg, xcg, xlp, xgazh-min
7/29/2009see nan, mnp, cdo, czo, cpx

*i-default: *I looked more into this following the RFCs. It is a very
screwy concept (IMO), and I don't know of any significant implementation
that uses it, but I think the key phrase is:

Messages in Default Language MUST be understandable by an
English-speaking person

Given that, I think the best approach would be to define a variant tag so
that we can form en-idefault

Of course, existing implementations that use "i-default" can continue to
use "i-default"; it is deprecated, not removed. But everyone who wants to
change to a syntactically regular format, can then do so.

*enochian: *I wouldn't be in favor of a registered language tag for
enochian, simply because it is not important enough to start allocating
them for it. I'd suggest adding "art-enochian" just to get the ball
rolling, and requesting a new 3 letter tag for it. If and when the 3 letter
code arrives, we can deprecated i-enochian and the variant subtag enochian
in favor of it.

Mark <>

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:47 AM, John Cowan <cowan at> wrote:

> Kent Karlsson scripsit:
> > According to Wikipedia, the Gaulish languages are (or rather were):
> > xtg – Transalpine Gaulish
> > xcg – Cisalpine Gaulish
> > xlp – Lepontic
> > xga – Galatian
> It's a bit more dcomplex than that.  Lepontic is probably the sister
> language to the Gaulish group, and whether Noric and Galatian are
> Gaulish proper or just closely related is a question.  Celtiberian
> is further away.  But nobody knows whether these languages form
> a proper clade with respect to the insular Celtic languages or not.
> I would deprecate this tag and *not* refer to any other tags.  People
> who are likely to tag things with Gaulish probably know more about it
> than any of us on this list (unless indeed we have a Gaulish scholar
> lurking, in which case, speak up!)
> > So I think a comment like:
> > "Comment: See: nan for Min Nan, mnp for Min Bei, cdo for Min Dong,
> >   czo for Min Zhong, cpx for Pu-Xian."
> > would be appropriate for this registry entry, while deprecating this
> > tag.
> I agree, but using the standard comment form "see nan, mnp, cdo, czo, cpx".
> > According to Wikipedia, Mingo is a dialect of Seneca
> That may not be entirely true either, but there is at least
> one first-hand report that they are mutually intelligible: see
> <>.  So I'd say:
> let's register mingo as a variety subtag and deprecate i-mingo in favor
> of see-mingo.
> Doug Ewell scripsit:
> > If Michael is fine with 'oxford', I won't argue. I thought it was a
> > conscious decision that 'oxford' might misleadingly imply the city
> > rather than the dictionary.
> True, but I think we can let that go now.
> Finally, i-default *must* be left alone: it is unique and has a particular
> use, and is not the same as und.
> --
> John Cowan        cowan at
> I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
> alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
> went over me.  I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
> Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.  --Bilbo to Smaug
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list