Martin J. Dürst duerst at
Mon Jan 9 05:31:41 CET 2017

Hello Luc,

On 2017/01/07 06:31, Luc Pardon wrote:

>    Agreed, but I never said that script was irrelevant. My point was
> simply that - with hindsight - it would have been better to provide
> separate fields with appropriate names, i.e. "lang=en script=Latn"
> instead of "lang=en-Latn".

No. Convincing the relevant WGs is the W3C to have the lang attribute 
was (and is) quite some work. I know that first hand. I can't imagine 
what it would have taken to convince these WGs to add another attribute, 
or potentially even more (country, various attributes for various 

>   The way it it is now is equivalent to building a customer database
> with a single field called "name", and then lumping all the relevant
> infp about the customer (birth date, gender, e-mail) into that single
> "name" field, glue it all together with hyphens, and define an elaborate
> parsing algorithm to take it all apart again.

Rather than repeating this (I think clearly flawed) argument, I would 
appreciate you if you could reply to my mail of Dec. 19th, 2016 (maybe 
Dec. 18 your time), where I clearly refute that argument.

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: I have tried to find an archive for ietf-languages at, 
without success. If somebody knows about one, please tell the list. If 
somebody is missing my above-mentioned mail, please tell me so that I 
can resend it.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list