- 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>
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 UTC