RE: Language for taxonomic names, redux

Peter Constable <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.languages
Message-ID <CY4PR03MB27905886C6E6A59C668A691AD5520@CY4PR03MB2790.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 7:04 AM

[back-and-forth dialog ignored and snipped; I found this thanks to Philip Newton calling attention to it]

> I would also like other members of this list to be explicit about their support. misgivings, 
> or disapproval of the scheme. No plus-ones, and if you’re fence-sitting, say that explicitly 
> too. Thanks. 

I'm not opposed in principle. 

But I don't think a good case has been made for use. (You want to style terms differently? You don't need a language tag for that. You want terms to be ignored by spellers? There are existing ways to do that, such as a private-use tag. You want to do both? You can use a private-use language tag for both the styling and spelling issues.) The key issue in my mind is public, interoperable interchange: is this likely to be used to improve existing challenges in interoperability of publicly-interchanged information? Styling a web page does not entail a public language-info interchange operability issue. Making 3rd-party TTS tools behave in a particular way would, if there was any likelihood of such tools existing. But I haven't seen a good case made along that line.

I also don't think there's clarity about how to tag: as a language, as a variant of some particular language, or as variants of various languages.



Peter
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.