Subject: [Ltru] Re: Ltru Digest, Vol 19, Issue 88

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:58:27 -0700

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> Let's not make up problems where they don't exist. I see no 
> groundswell, nor any realistic prospect of a groundswell, of people 
> tagging languages with unnecessary scripts.

+1 to that.

> Now, this is all getting away from Karen's quite reasonable desire to 
> provide people more clarity on the fact that for material that is only 
> non-written it isn't a good idea to include a script subtag. I could 
> even see, in some applications, tagging records with, for example, 
> zh-Zxxx, meaning unwritten Chinese. Then I could search records for zh 
> (meaning any zh, no matter whether spoken, or written in traditional, 
> or written in simplified, or written in pinyin), or filter that to 
> only non-written, or only simplified, or only romanized.

Hold on, Zxxx is defined as "Code for unwritten languages."  I don't see 
that as meaning the same as "linguistic content that is not written." 
Then again, I'm the literalist who argued for years that "sign language 
as used in the United States" wasn't the same as "American Sign 
Language."

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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