I agree.<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 17:15, Randy Presuhn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi -<br>
<br>
> From: "John Cowan" <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>><br>
> To: <<a href="mailto:ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a>><br>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 4:52 PM<br>
> Subject: A stake in the ground<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> In my view, none of the candidates for change to macrolanguage status<br>
> should be usable as prefixes in extlang records.<br>
<br>
</div>BCP 47 doesn't preclude such usage. It would, however, require<br>
such changes to be carefully coordinated so that the "all or none"<br>
conditions are met. Because ltru decided that some, but by no means<br>
all, macrolanguages were of potential utility as prefeixes in extlang<br>
records, this group is left evaluating these on a case-by-case basis.<br>
As in the case of ltru, "legacy" practices will need to be a significant<br>
consideration. And yes, I think questions like Michael's regarding<br>
the actual extent of such usage are very relevant.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Randy<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>