Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Martin Duerst wrote:

> I'm not totally sure about en-cockney and i-cherokee.

i-cherokee cannot be registered because the language
already has another subtag, and besides RFC 4646 does
not permit i-whatever registrations.  "en-cockney" is
in theory possible, but no compelling example, "en"
and "en-US" are already enough "en".

>>    See RFC 4646 for further information.
> Again, better use BCP 47.

The normative reference is RFC 4646 at the moment, not
some moving target.  A successor of RFC 4646 can do
whatever it needs to do, e.g., dump the subtag syntax
in favour of ISO 639-6, trash the extlang-syntax if it
turned out to be unnecessary, reintroduce i-whatever
tags, or invent a new concept for region codes.  Two
of these four points are far from only hypothetical.

2616bis has to fix the RFC 2616 1*8ALPHA bug without
introducing new bugs, and for that it needs a precise
reference.  Whatever is state of the art in a year.
  
 Frank

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 04:57:01 UTC