Hi John,
Thanks for your note back. First I'll respond to a trivial item and then,
separately, to the STD/BCP question.
You wrote:
(ii)
The idea of using a registry of components (in this case
subtags) that can be mixed and matched at the implementer's
discretion, albeit according to specific rules, is somewhat
untested in the IETF and the Internet applications community.
Perhaps true in most respects, but not with regard to RFC 3066!
RFC 3066 allows specific tag registration, yes, but it also includes a
generative syntax (albeit not identified formally as such).
Thus the concern you have about people doing subtag mix-and-match already
exists in RFC 3066 (as I'm sure you're aware) and the community has ample
experience with that. Here are some perfectly valid RFC 3066 tags that are
silly or at least dubious and also not registered:
tlh-AQ (Klingon as used in the Antarctic)
it-SG (Italian as used in Singapore)
zh-CO (Chinese as used in Columbia)
ang-TL (Old English as used in Timor Leste)
cs-CS (Czech as used in Serbia and Montenegro)
So... RFC 3066 has already tested the idea thoroughly and we are just dancing
in the margins (he says, squinting VERY hard to ignore obvious questions of
order of magnitude).
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf