Criteria for languages?

[Phillips, Addison]

> So, one can surmise that the answer is that "lvs" would be
> recommended, though "lav-lvs" can also be used. But it's really not

It would be "lv-lvs". And, of course, one could continue to use "lv".

> obvious.
> 
> And, I gather the process would be that "lvs" be registered with
> two records:
> 
> Type: language
> Subtag: lvs
> Description: Standard Latvian
> Added: ...
> Macrolanguage: lav
> 
> and
> 
> Type: extlang
> Subtag: lvs
> Description: Standard Latvian
> Added: ...
> Preferred-Value: lvs
> Prefix: lav
> 
> 
> Is that right?
> 

BCP 47 permits such a registration (Section 3.3, item 12.C), although one could quibble that Latvian (lv) is already registered. Both 'lvs' and 'ltg' would have to be registered as extended language subtags in that case, not just lvs.

Note that 'lav' would not be the Prefix or the Macrolanguage, since 'lv' is the actual subtag. I'm not sure if adding more extlangs is a Good Thing, although this case does look similar to the other existing extlangs and I think I would support it.

Addison