<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>Hi,<BR>
<BR>This seems fine with me; what will happen though to content tagged with gsw-FR if gsw becomes a prefix for a new tag (Randy asked previously, will gsw-FR be synonymous with gsw-Els&#xE4;ssisch ? probably should be for now)<BR>
<BR>
But no doubt some speakers may already be using gsw-FR so the comments field will give this use legitimacy, so I would o.k. it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:44:00 +0100<BR>> From: bortzmeyer@nic.fr<BR>> <BR>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:29:53AM +0100,<BR>> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote <BR>> a message of 96 lines which said:<BR>> <BR>> > Type: variant<BR>> > Subtag: alsatian<BR>> > Description: Alsatian variant of Alemannic<BR>> > Description: Els&#xE4;ssisch<BR>> > Prefix: gsw<BR>> <BR>> I withdraw this request for a while. Discussion have shown that there<BR>> is not yet "rough consensus" on it (yes, I know that section 3.5 of<BR>> RFC 4646 does not make consensus on ietf-languages a mandatory<BR>> condition).<BR>
<BR>> <BR>> Also, the discussion on Erzgebirgisch have shown that germanic<BR>> languages are a difficult issue.<BR>> <BR>> I will post soon another request, to add a Comments field to gsw<BR>> saying that gsw-FR is suitable for alsatian.<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Ietf-languages mailing list<BR>> Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no<BR>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<BR><BR></body>
</html>