Last call for ISO 15924-based updates

[Phillips, Addison]

A two-week extension is an extension that last two weeks. You are informing the list that they have two weeks in which to comment, so you can't just retract the extension because you have made up your mind. 

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:07 AM
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Last call for ISO 15924-based updates
> 
> On 17 Mar 2009, at 04:33, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> 
> > I note, however, that at Doug’s behest, the reviewer extended the
> > period for this subtag by two weeks on 13 March. We must
> therefore
> > wait until 27 March, at which point anyone can petition the
> reviewer
> > for a decision on the original registration.
> 
> Is the full two weeks obligatory in extension? If an extension is
> granted because "two weeks were not enough", it's not unreasonable
> to
> say, "well, we're good with an answer now after a few more days".
> Not
> that it matters.
> 
> So far I've made up my mind on this one. No one proposed any
> "health
> warning" text that wasn't more directive than comments should be,
> so
> I'm satisfied with the original record.
> 
> > Otherwise, I hope that he will approve the original record for
> > inclusion, noting that comments may be registered in the future.
> 
> Nihil obstat.
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages