Re: rfc4646. Some analysis code

On Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 4:05:53 PM, John wrote:

JC> 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?

JC> No, because "gaulish" is not a registered variant subtag

Right
 
JC>  and probably
JC> never will be.

Why doyou say that? Althoughi find the procedure tomake it registered obscure,soyou may well be right :)
 
JC>   So "cel-Grek-gaulish" is well-formed but not valid.
JC> (Script tags are four letters long.)

JC> As for "cel-gaulish" itself, it's syntactically regular, but semantically
JC> grandfathered: 

Yes (I registered it,when that was the approved method)

JC> it means not "some unspecified Celtic language in the
JC> unknown variety called 'gaulish'",

I know

Where do you get 'unspecified' from cel- by the way?

JC>  but rather "Gaulish". 

That was the intention. Given that Gaulish was written in several scripts, including Greek, Latin, and Alpine, being  able to distinguish those by script tags is obviously desirable.


JC>  In RFC 4646bis
JC> there will be regular non-grandfathered tags for Transalpine and
JC> Cisalpine Gaulish,

I would appreciate details (and wonder on what basis they are given as two languages). 

JC>  and perhaps one for Gaulish as a whole
JC> (in which case "cel-gaulish" will be deprecated).

I would be very happy to see it deprecated, as long as there is something better to replace it.
 
JC>   In the end
JC> we hope to have all the grandfathered tags deprecated except
JC> "i-default", which plays a very special role.





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 15:15:50 UTC