Re: Armenian (was: Re: ISO 639-3 changes, part 3)

Yes, I was wrong to say that 639-5 codes are not usable.  However, they are
certainly not advisable.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Arthur Reutenauer <
[email protected]> wrote:

> > 'hyx' is not a language code (it represents the Armenic language family,
> > just as 'gem' represents the Germanic language family), and like other
> > 639-5 codes, it cannot be used as a BCP 47 language tag.
>
>   Really?  I can’t find anything about it in RFC 5646; -5 code elements
> are mentioned explicitly as primary language subtags in section 2.2.1.
> They can’t be extlangs, though.  In any case, [hyx] is present in the
> language subtag registry, with the description “Armenian (family)”.
>
> >                                                           If the RA
> decides
> > to create a macrolanguage code for Armenian (macrolanguage), that's
> another
> > matter, but they haven't done so.
>
>   (Michael seems to have pre-empted their decision, by the way.)
>
>         Best,
>
>                 Arthur
>

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