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

My preference is to delete those comments.

If that is not possible, please follow what is already in the registry for
similar (and very terse) comments (and what you had in the first email you
referenced, but complete not partial).

I'm not at all trying to be obscure.

/Kent K


Den 2018-01-09 00:09, skrev "Doug Ewell" <[email protected]>:

> 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
>