proposed ISO standard for language variations

Mark Davis ☕️ mark at
Sat Aug 27 21:12:28 CEST 2016

​> simply ignoring ISO XXX as out of scope for BCP 47

Recharting is not attractive at all. Best — if they go they way they are
going — would be to ignore as out of scope. If and when relevant features
and data materialize, an extension would be feasible.


On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at> wrote:

> Peter Constable wrote:
> Follow-up on this topic:
>> L2/16-242
>> Ballot results for TC37/SC2 New Work Item Proposal: Identification and
>> description of language varieties
> Yeah, saw that.
> It's still not clear to me how supporters intend to work this into BCP 47,
> or to what extent they understand the language identification options
> already available. Comments about benefits to the linguistics community
> seem sensible -- those folks can always use more detail -- but some NBs
> wrote that this granularity is critically important to tagging of software
> and IT resources. I would not have guessed that, especially for varieties
> like stuttering or "motherese" or "individual speaker."
> There is a perception that BCP 47 encourages (not just "permits")
> excessively long and detailed language tags. It's known that some
> specifications that reference BCP 47, such as other RFCs, feel it necessary
> to add extra "health warnings" about keeping tags short, even restricting
> them to primary language subtags only, ignoring Section 4.1 of RFC 5646
> which already advises against using unnecessary subtags. The notion of
> applying this NWIP to BCP 47 seems to go in the opposite direction.
> If this is issued as a standard, naturally there would have to be some
> sort of registry for values like "business speak" or "Two-word-stage," and
> some way of handling the really open-ended values like "John Doe."
> Shoehorning the speaker's name into extension subtags isn't as
> straightforward as it might seem: what if the speaker's last name is
> "Constable" and thus longer than 8 letters? What if there's more than one
> Peter Constable out there?
> We would always have the option of rechartering the LTRU WG to create a
> new BCP 47 spec (replacing 5646) to support ISO XXX inherently, creating a
> new extension spec per Section 3.7, or simply ignoring ISO XXX as out of
> scope for BCP 47.
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list