Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian
doug at ewellic.org
Wed Apr 20 05:26:37 CEST 2016
Mark Davis wrote:
> It is best not to include phrases like "but that seems to be a
> political decision, not a linguistic one". Casting aspersions on
> someone's objectivity generally just pisses them off, which doesn't
> help to convince them.
I thought the RA pretty much conceded in their rejection letter that it
was a political decision: "The vast majority of languages covered by
Part 3 codes do not exist in a geographical or political context in
which they fall under the 'roof' of a more dominant standardized
language that already has a Part 2 code [i.e. unlike Elfdalian, which
does exist in such a political context]."
> (Also one item: in CLDR, I suspect we're unlikely to support any new
> language tags that are >3 letters. We've already agreed not to support
> any 4-letter ones.)
I'm not sure why this is. Four-letter subtags are permanently reserved,
so it makes sense not to bother with them, but how does this logic
extend to 5- to 8-letter subtags? Then again, I know there is a CLDR
ticket to ignore all non-generic variants, so perhaps CLDR doesn't mind
diverging further from BCP 47.
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
More information about the Ietf-languages