In any event, the proposal to use 639 for language tagging is separate
from the proposal to *do* language tagging. If 639 were actually
inadequate, then we should either use something else or supplement it
with additional qualification.
639 *IS* inadequate for your proposed purpose.
So, could you give us a workable idea on how can you do that?
It seems to me that this would be an important issue only in text-to-
speech applications, and then only in those applications in which it was
important that the recipient "hear" the same Chinese as the sender.
It's you who said
Content-Language:
is orthogonal to media type.
Again, that represents some class of applications, but certainly not
all. And, while I can think of some examples, it is not clear to me
how often one would prefer text-to-speech to simply sending the speech
(as audio) if the sounds, rather than the characters, were relevant.
But, that is the only example you give us.
It is not clear to me that we must choose "no solution" (or a
solution that either creates a very large number of registrations and/or
gets us into trouble when 10646.2 is published)
Assuming that 10646.2 will ever be pulished, can you explain what
trouble will occur then?
Masataka Ohta