Requests that have been on hold

[CE Whitehead]

Doug, thanks for remembering these!
Also, why is the added date for [vmf] (and other new subtags) appear as:Added: 2029-09-09
???Should not it be: Added: 2009-09-09Or??(I'm sorry I am new at this; it does not look right but I am sure it is me.) I suppose I should create three separate threads for the rest of this. Best, C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Sun Aug 9 07:26:13 CEST 2009 
> Now that we have access to the full RFC 4646bis Registry, with its ISO > 639-3-based subtags, it's probably a good time to go back and review the > various proposals that have been discussed, but put on hold until the > new Registry took effect.

> This would include at least the following proposals:
> . . . 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090809/ecb3ce7e/attachment.htm