Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050411110551.043c6860@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:41:02 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Compatibility with existing use (LDAP)
In-Reply-To: <009401c53e5a$cc7dc360$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050406191319.GBPY2135.mta2.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<002c01c53b40$9b68a780$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050407151257.05072eb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<006501c53bfa$539ba820$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050408171453.03390d70@mail.jefsey.com>
	<009401c53e5a$cc7dc360$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 07:53 11/04/2005, Doug Ewell said:
> > 3. this being said, I would be quite interested in understanding what
> > you list as the 10 variant subtags?
>
>Why, the ones in the registry: 1901, 1996, boont, gaulish, guoyu, hakka,
>nedis, rozaj, scouse, and xiang.

Since the number of direct possibilities you give a maximum limit for is 
directly related (by multiplication) to their number, should I 
understand  you assume that this list extinguishes all the possibilities? 
Or that the mximum number (as when you consider ISO 639) is only related to 
the present status of approved documents. In this case I would agree that 
your figure accurately represents the current administrative maximum, while 
I am refering to a probable maximum of the real world. The administrative 
maximum starting from your figure when preloading the database to reach 
mine once the IANA's register has stabilized.
jfc 


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru