Re: Missing M.49 code

Should we be talking about creating variant subtag 'sercq'?

No, variants don't help at all


Mark

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark Davis wrote:
>
> >> Is this desired because
> >>
> >> (a) there is actual linguistic content in Sercquiais (or the "Sark
> >> variety" of some other language) that needs to be tagged,
> >
> > (a) Not a relevant objection. There may well be a need; BCP47 is
> > structured so that we don't have to care whether there is a "need" for
> > ja-AQ, etc.
>
> I wasn't objecting. I was asking what the use case was for pursuing this
> right now. As you noted, 680 for Sark has existed in M.49 since 2011
> with no 3166-1 equivalent, and it didn't seem to be a concern until now.
>
> >> (b) because there is a desire to create CLDR locale data for Sark, or
> >>
> >> (c) simply because CLDR somehow expects every UN M.49 code element to
> >> have a corresponding ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code element?
> >
> > (b), (c) General-purpose software has come to depend on the LSTR for
> > stable codes. Having a misalignment does nobody any good.
>
> Should we be talking about creating variant subtag 'sercq'?
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages