W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: rfc4646. Some analysis code

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:05:53 -0500
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: I18N <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20061108150553.GO4884@ccil.org>

Chris Lilley scripsit:

> Does that mean (since cel-gaulish was not on your irregular list, and
> also given that cel is a registered tag and gaulish is five-to-eight
> letters) that I can now write things like
> 
> cel-GRK-gaulish
> 
> to describe, say a gaulish legend on a coin, written in ancient
> greek script?

No, because "gaulish" is not a registered variant subtag and probably
never will be.  So "cel-Grek-gaulish" is well-formed but not valid.
(Script tags are four letters long.)

As for "cel-gaulish" itself, it's syntactically regular, but semantically
grandfathered: it means not "some unspecified Celtic language in the
unknown variety called 'gaulish'", but rather "Gaulish".  In RFC 4646bis
there will be regular non-grandfathered tags for Transalpine and
Cisalpine Gaulish, and perhaps one for Gaulish as a whole
(in which case "cel-gaulish" will be deprecated).  In the end
we hope to have all the grandfathered tags deprecated except
"i-default", which plays a very special role.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
        --Gerald Holton
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 15:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:08 GMT