Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:14:59 -0600

I wrote:

> I seriously question whether this standard is being active maintained.

Feel free to suggest your own language tag for that sentence.  It's not 
en-US, that's for sure.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:02:44 -0600

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> Of the latter class, some can be identified with particular BCP 47 
> tags, but the bulk cannot due to the lack of corresponding registered 
> variants.  In addition, there are concepts like "Written X" that have 
> no BCP 47 equivalent at present; we can represent "X written in script 
> Y" but not the concept of "X written in any script."

It would -- or at least it should -- be a simple matter for 
ietf-languages to register two variant subtags, 'written' and 'spoken', 
each with no Prefix, if this is felt to be a genuine need.