addison at lab126.com
Mon Dec 19 02:55:32 CET 2016
I agree with the general sentiment. I don't see much utility to a mechanism like this, even if others suppose there is a use for it. Language tagging mechanisms can't be expected to identify every single modality and variation in text or usage.
I do slightly disagree about RFCs in this case: writing an extension RFC is pretty simple. If someone needs a way to do this and existing subtag can't do the job, that's where I'd point.
(Sent from my Fire tablet)
On December 18, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
I don’t agree at all that code-switching combination languages like
Spanglish can be considered "translations" to the extent the "t"
extension can reasonably be used to identify them.
If "Don Quixote" or some other Spanish text is translated into English,
that would be "en-t-es". A vernacular that mixes English and Spanish
fairly equally, or one that interjects large amounts of Spanish
vocabulary into an English framework, is not a translation into or out
of either language.
If it is finally decided that there is a need to create a single BCP 47
entity for these, instead of using two language tags, then we need to
create a mechanism that fits the need. If that means creating a new RFC,
and we all know how complex that process is, then that is what needs to
be done. We didn't create requirements in RFC 4646 and 5646 in order to
step around them.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages