Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

Andrew Glass (WINDOWS) Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com
Fri May 15 22:27:07 CEST 2015


The mail from Doug confirming that the subtag registry had been updated didn’t land in my inbox,



IANA has updated the language subtag registry. See the “abl1943,”

“ao1990,” and “colb1945” variant entries at



http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry



http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates


I had therefore incorrectly inferred that the correction to the spelling of Portuguese in the one record would extend the review period. Happily that is not the case.

Thank you everyone who contributed to the discussion that led to the addition of these subtags!

Andrew

From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:57 AM
To: Michael Everson; ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: RE: Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

I'm really confused now. The Portuguese subtags were registered a few days ago.

I understand that Andrew would prefer that the tags be registered first, with less-than-ideal prefixes, and then go back and reopen the debate over the Prefix field. That is actually the opposite of what I said, though it is a valid point.

I guess my objection is to calling these changes "corrections" when they were at the heart of the lengthy debate we had, and the Prefix fields that were finally registered were explicitly the ones Michael wanted.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
________________________________
From: Michael Everson<mailto:everson at evertype.com>
Sent: ‎5/‎15/‎2015 11:17
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion<mailto:ietf-languages at iana.org>
Subject: Re: Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'
On 15 May 2015, at 18:10, Andrew Glass (WINDOWS) <Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com<mailto:Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com>> wrote:

> I would have preferred "Prefix: pt", however, for my purposes, I can live with the current solution. Getting the tag registered in a timely way is a higher priority for me at this point than the precise form of the prefix. Therefore, I'd prefer to follow Doug's suggestion and allow the registration to proceed as is before opening up the debate over the prefix once more.

I concur.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no<mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150515/6d79edf5/attachment.html>


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list