Re: Revised forms for Montenegrin (was: RE: Macrolanguage)

Let me back up, because I'm really confused.


Earlier, Kent Karlsson wrote:

> If we are to have comments like:
>
> Comments: see <every other language code under the same macrolanguage>
> for <every other language under the same macrolanguage>
>
> then we should do so systematically. We don't seem to have them for
> any other macrolanguage, so why for 'sh' (and then only partial such
> comments)?

and I replied:

> I suggested this comment in
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00083.html

and Kent replied:

> Your current proposed records do not follow your suggestion in that
> email.


I have to confess I do not know what Kent is driving at here.

In
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00083.html
I wrote:

> When [cnr] does appear on the ISO 639-2 and/or 639-3 code tables,
> which will trigger its addition to the Registry, I will propose
> including this field in the new 'cnr' record:
>
> Comments: see sr
>
> and adding this field to the existing 'sr' record:
>
> Comments: see cnr

In
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00084.html
John Cowan replied:

> I would change the latter ["see cnr"] to "see cnr for Montenegrin",
> since few will know what the code means.

and in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00085.html
I replied to John:

> That seems reasonable.

Then, in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00090.html
Michael Everson replied:

> Those are a little terse.

and in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00091.html
I replied to Michael:

> They are what we have used for years. Only a very few Comments fields
> for language and extlang subtags are longer than "see A, B, C".
>
> I am fine with "see sr for Serbian" and "see cnr for Montenegrin" in
> this case.

and that is what I put in the records for Montenegrin and Serbian today.


So yes, strictly speaking I followed the refined template in msg0085 and
msg00091, "see xxx for XXX", as suggested by other list members, rather
than the shorter template "see xxx" that I originally proposed in
msg00083.

But I don't think this is what Kent is getting at. I was under the
impression he objected to the "see" comments in any form, because we do
not do this consistently for every macrolanguage situation. And I tried
to explain that it wasn't meant to be done for every macrolanguage (and
indeed "macrolanguage" has nothing to do with this), but only in this
rather extreme case of assigning a new language subtag that was
previously widely understood to be covered by an existing language
subtag.

Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org