<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR><BR>Hi!<BR>Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at mindspring.com <BR>Sun Jan 24 00:57:56 CET 2010 <BR><BR><BR>> Hi -<BR><BR>>> From: "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org><BR>>> To: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se><BR>>> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>; "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org><BR>>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:26 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re: Latvian extlang subtags<BR>>> ...<BR>>> But not arbitrarily selected, rather selected on the criteria that (a)<BR>>> the macrolanguage subtag had been widely used in IT and (b) there was<BR>>> a single dominant variety. Latvian qualifies on both counts.<BR><BR>>(a) was certainly a consideration.<BR>>As far as I can recall, (b) was not. I do not know why (b) would have been<BR>>a valid criterion. We would (I believe) have come to the same conclusion<BR>>regarding 'zh' regardless of the Cantonese:Mandarin ratio.<BR>><BR>I agree with Randy here.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>My objection to extension language status for Standard Latvian and Latgalian was that, as far as I could tell, from a perfunctory glance at the online documents specified in the change request, the tag [lv] was used primarily to tag Standard Latvian. <BR><BR> <BR><BR>(No doubt I have not located it all . . . please let me know if documents other than those tagged by the Standard Latvian/Latgalian split change requestor are tagged as [lv]; thanks!)<BR><BR> <BR><BR>(Another note: I really do not know whether the list of extended languages is still open or not and I defer to the rest of you on that issue.)<BR><BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com"><FONT color=#0068cf>cewcathar@hotmail.com</FONT></A><BR>> Randy<BR><BR> </body>
</html>