Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian

[Shawn Steele]

> So in other words no, it will not be possible to include this private use tag in BCP47. It will not be listed within IANA.
> I know it will be valid, but that is something else than included.
> I think you're suggesting a really bad solution for Elfdalian.

If by “include” you mean saying qaa === Elfdalian in the language subtag registry, then no.  That would defeat the purpose of the private use tag.  By my definition of include, it’s already permitted.

It isn’t suggested as a permanent solution, but rather a temporary method to allow people interested in the language to tag content appropriately.

I have used this technique in the past for projects I was interested in.  (Bing uses tlh-Qaak, however now needs to be updated to tlh-Piqd if you want a real-world example.  Previously there was an i- code.)

Given the direction of the conversation, it seems unlikely to me that this language tag issue will be resolved within the next month or two.  So I’m suggesting that as a possible path to unblock your immediate needs, not as a long-term solution.

-Shawn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20160425/6332117d/attachment-0001.html>