Re: Registration requests: akuapem, asante

Don Osborn wrote:

> It would be nice to maintain a unified approach to Akan, but probably
> not necessary to have two ISO 639 codes in this tag.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a unified approach." ISO 639 has assigned 
separate code elements for Twi and Fanti, and therefore individual 
subtags have been assigned in the LSR as well. Do you suggest that users 
ignore these and tag all Akan content with the macrolanguage subtag 
'ak'?

I never got a response (from anyone) to my question about current 
tagging practice, quoted yet again below:

| The purpose of BCP 47 is to provide identifiers for language content,
| based when possible on ISO standard code elements.
|
| ISO 639 has coded Twi [tw, twi] separately from Akan [ak, aka].
|
| Irrespective of the fact that "Twi" is actually a name for two of the
| three major dialects of Akan (the two for which Sascha has proposed
| variant subtags), I believe it would be destabilizing for BCP 47 to
| encourage users to tag Twi content as "ak" or "ak-anything" instead of
| using "tw".


> Sent this to the list, but apparently a snafu with my subscription 
> (?).

Try re-subscribing. Remember it's @ietf.org now, not @alvestrand.no.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org