Add Likely Subtags first step
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sun Jan 25 18:48:24 CET 2015
Mark Davis ☕️ scripsit:
> Sounds like there is rough consensus on deprecating all of them, which is
> the most important step.
There is *no* consensus for deprecating i-default.
> *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
That is selective quotation. Two paragraphs later, the RFC says:
In many cases, using only English text is reasonable; in some cases,
the English text may be augumented by text in other languages.
That means i-default text, though it includes English, may not be entirely
in English. It is used in existing protocols such as IMAP, and should
not be changed merely due to someone's rage for order.
> Given that, I think the best approach would be to define a variant tag so
> that we can form en-idefault
> *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.
It isn't even worth that much effort. As a conlang, it is bottom-tier: a
mixture of English relexification and anglophone glossolalia. SIL is
in the process, as I noted before, of redefining its standards for
registering conlangs, but as things stand it has not been used for
creating novel text by anyone but its creators, who are dead.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application:
WELCOME TO <censored>
DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900
More information about the Ietf-languages