Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags
Michael Everson
everson at evertype.com
Mon Feb 8 10:26:07 CET 2010
On 8 Feb 2010, at 09:18, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Indeed, my position is that **NO** more *extlang* subtags should be
> registered. (That is easy for the reviewer too...)
Yes, Kent. I know. It has been explained to me that in the LTRU
discussions Doug (for instance) took the view that
* the total set of extlang-able macrolanguages should be open to
expansion when ISO 639-3 decides to convert an existing individual
language code element to a macrolanguage
(in which case I should approve both lv and bnc)
and that you took the view that
* that the total set was intended to be fixed and not expandable
(in which case I should reject both lv and bnc)
Now John is saying that I should not be using *linguistic* judgement
at all, but approve one and reject the other on the basis of knowledge
which I did not have.
It seems to me that a hames was made of this by the LTRU. There's
little to guide me, and the judgement I'm to make it isn't
*linguistic*. So I'm afraid this group is going to have to rehash the
basics of what extlangs are for, so that some sort of coherent policy
can be set.
I would now like to call on Peter Constable for his opinion.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list