Re: Registration requests: akuapem, asante

(cc: list trimmed)

Martin Hosken wrote:

> I think your solution is a good one. But it does raise the question of
> whether this is the right time to add this subtag. I have a list of
> 3000+ dialects from one registry. We could try to add variants for
> them all speculatively, but that would be a lot of work much of which
> we would get wrong. So, I've tended to say: don't ask for a variant
> until you need it. Is this a right approach or not?

I didn't have the impression Sascha was asking for a flood of thousands 
of dialects with no demonstrated tagging need. Back on May 18 he 
mentioned the three UDHR samples.

Sascha replied:

> Currently, all three are tagged as xml:lang="ak". Based on this
> discussion, it sounds like they can be tagged as
> xml:lang="tw-akuapem", xml:lang="tw-asante" and xml:lang="fat" once
> the proposed new variant subtags (for akuapem and asante) have been
> registered.

Even without the variant subtags, "tw" and "tw" and "fat" would still 
have been better than calling them all "ak".

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