Martin J. Dürst duerst at
Mon Dec 19 10:19:09 CET 2016

On 2016/12/19 10:55, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> 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.

Especially if these would have to cover an very wide area of 
possibilities, including (at least) two languages, potentially a rough 
percentage (Michael's example was somewhere around >80% Spanish, <20% 
English), potentially some hint about which kind of words are selected 
from the secondary language (I was surprised to see the word "sleep" in 
English, because it's surely available even to Spanish speakers who have 
never seen a book), and potentially some additional hints about how 
grammar gets handled (see John's and Mark's contributions).

> 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.

I'd definitely also point in this direction, and agree that writing an 
extension RFC isn't rocket science. The difficult part in the case at 
hand will be where to stop.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list