Re: Forms for subtag kmpre20c

> If that's truly the case, the proper tag is und-Khmr.

Why not. Generally speaking I think all lang tags should all have a
macrolanguage though. Most our database is composed of Tibetan; most
of it is Classical but we also have old and modern, but we don't care
about the distinction in the lang tags. I certainly find und-Tibt (or
actually und-x-ewts as we're using transliteation) quite ugly and I
would much prefer bo to be a macrolanguage (like zh) instead of an
individual one. But that's not a problem I can solve... In the
meantime I'll use km as it's much more user friendly.

> You then hit the
> problem that language tagging doesn't handle exclusions.  At least,
> Michael Everson said it doesn't and I have no reason to disbelieve
> him.  It also makes sense to me as a policy.

Sure

> And this immediately undermines the previous generality, as it includes
> things like pi-Khmr.

What generality? I'm not following

> What about printed Khmer-script missionary texts from 1893 printed in
> Hong Kong?

We don't have any yet and we have no acquisition plan for such texts.
What about them?

> The fact that Middle English as a whole certainly lacked a standard
> orthography is no bar to its being classified as a language.  The lack
> of standards is therefore not of itself a bar to adding variants for
> Old Khmer (if you truly have such materials), Middle Khmer and I
> suggest is not necessarily a bar to 'pre 20th century' Modern Khmer.

Sure.

> It might be necessary to provide evidence of a time depth to the
> variations - in which case we should try to get the experts involved.

That's what we're trying to do, but we can't expect to stop all
operations before we get the answers, and they probably won't be there
in the next few decades... and I need to tag my data in the meantime.

Best,
-- 
Elie