Subject: RE: [Ltru] At least one prefix for variant (GenArt)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:03:02 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> John.Cowan

> > To read like this:
> >
> > --
> > Prefix's field-value contains a language tag with which this subtag
MAY
> be used to form a new language tag, perhaps with other subtags as
well, or
> the special tag "*", indicating that this subtag could be considered
> appropriate with any combination of subtags.
> > --
> 
> What's the argument against just allowing zero prefixes for variants?

If you want to allow a null field-value in the prefix field, wouldn't it
make more sense to say that a prefix field is not required?

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:48:33 -0400

> make more sense to say that a prefix field is not required?

Actually, I meant "What's the argument against just allowing no 'Prefix:'
fields in the definition of a variant?"  (I can see how the collocation
"zero prefix" would cause trouble here.)

I agree that -north -south -east -west -old -middle -modern are
problematic, but I don't think -signed is.  Of course, one could enter
an arbitrary prefix like "en" for -signed, since that would allow its
use with any language subtag, but I don't think that's in accordance
with the spirit of the thing.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley