Subject: [Ltru] Stability of lprimary and extended language (was: Re: New item in ISO 639-2 - Zaza)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:55:23 -0700

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote on 
[email-masked]

> If we have firm stability rules, then I'm ok with #2 also. But these
> rules have to be very explicit and strong, something like: Once added
> to the registry:
>
>   - a language subtag may be deprecated, but never becomes an extlang
>     subtag
>   - an extlang subtag may be deprecated, but never becomes a language
>     subtag
>   - the relationship of an extlang to a language tag (its macro
>     language) may be deprecated, but is never removed.

Using John's example of a language Thwackian which exists in 639- 3, and 
is subsequently listed under the macrolanguage Thuddian:

Does this mean literally that if language subtag "tha" originally 
existed for Thwackian, a new extlang subtag "tha" cannot be created 
(with prefix "thn" for Thuddian) after the original "tha" is deprecated? 
Or does it simply mean the original "tha" can't be reclassified from one 
category to the other?

I don't see any syntactical conflict in RFC 3066{bis, ter} if a language 
subtag "tha" and an extlang subtag "tha" (one of which is deprecated) 
both exist, even if ISO 639 doesn't define its codespace that way.  The 
effect would be basically the same as Mark's scenario #3, which would 
allow both "tha" and "thn-tha" as synonyms, but no additional structure 
would be needed in the RFC; all the components would be present in the 
Registry.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:07:54 -0400

> Or does it simply mean the original "tha" can't be reclassified from one 

I believe that is what he means, yes.

> would be needed in the RFC; all the components would be present in the 

So they would, but it's not clear that the benefit of doing that
(namely, that Thwackian content can be retrieved by asking for Thuddian)
outweighs the advantages of stability.

Hitherto we have deprecated codes only when clearly-better alternatives
exist, and we never allow synonymous codes unless all but one are deprecated.

-- 
As you read this, I don't want you to feel      John Cowan
sorry for me, because, I believe everyone       [email-masked]
will die someday.                               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --From a Nigerian-type scam spam