Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 19:41:35 -0600

Shawn Steele <Shawn dot Steele at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> Re: the grandfathered tags, I think it might be necessary to be clear 
> that, though grandfathered, some existing applications may depend on 
> them, particularly zh-cmn and zh-yue.  I think this is different than 
> previous grandfathered cases because a) They seem to be more widely 
> used (eg Wikipedia) than i-klingon, and b) other grandfathered tags 
> (zh-guoyu) point(ed) at them, and c) RFC 4646 made that direction seem 
> likely.  Maybe these two even need a "grandfathered but recognized as 
> being extra special" category.

I don't support adding more normative categories on the basis of "seem 
to be more widely used" or "seem likely."  We've had enough trouble 
agreeing on Suppress-Script judgment calls as it is.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 19:55:10 -0700

I agree: we either deprecate them or we don't. Deprecation is not invalidation or destruction. They remain valid and useful, insofar as legacy applications depend on them. We shouldn't create a special class of semi-deprecated forms, since interoperability would be better served if applications that can migrate to the newer forms do migrate.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:42 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang
>