Review period; Nepali and Oriya

[Doug Ewell]

Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:

> Just to clarify: These records will have "Scope: macrolanguage",
> right? And the descriptions will be changed to include
> "(macrolanguage)"?

Yes, I was using quick excerpts from the current Registry to show each 
record that would get a Comments field. See my "Updated" post from July 
27 
(http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2012-July/011457.html) 
for the actual records and registration forms that would be modified.

> As for the comments, you are only mentioning the subtag that was
> formerly represented by this subtag, but not the one which now
> represents the individual language?

I had thought that people might need the cross-reference to the minority 
language more than to the dominant language, but I don't know why I 
thought that.

Maybe adding Comments fields to macrolanguages that don't have extlangs 
is a bad idea and a slippery slope. We've never done it before, and they 
could start to be viewed by some as "required" Comments fields, which 
they aren't (we've had this problem before). Let's not do this. We can 
always add comments later if desired.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­