<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-23 12:08 GMT+02:00 Peter Constable <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com" target="_blank">petercon@microsoft.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Mats Blakstad [mailto:<a href="mailto:mats.gbproject@gmail.com" target="_blank">mats.gbproject@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:24 AM<br>
<br>
<b><u></u><u></u></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">[snip]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">> I completely understand that argument. However, it is the process that the RA
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>
</span>themselves have led, giving special requirements for Elfdalian for assigning a
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>
</span>language code that are not given for other languages, that put us in this situation.<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It is _<i>the openness of the RA’s process</i>_ that has enabled us to be discussing this at all! Otherwise, you would have received a rejection without any idea as to why
or as to who else provided what input. </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I've not myself, and I've not heard anyone else, complain about the openness of the RA. I don't know how it stands compared with other ISO bodies, but my own experience was that they used a lot of time to publish comments they got in the review period, I had to write many times to them before they were published, and I think they should have facilitated more active discussions about the application in the review period so we didn't need to wait for 12 months maybe because of misunderstanding. I think the requirements to get an ISO code should have been much more clear and it would be great to know more clearly how the people of the RA is selected and what their mandate is. I'm overall not very impressed by the openness in the process, I think they could have done more, but I don't have much to compare with, and I guess the process was fair enough, even though it is very time-consuming when they only approve codes once a year.<br><br>I'm of course happy that they publish comments from the review period in the end, and that they've made a clear statement about why they rejected the application. However, even if they had rejected the application without the same openness, we would still be in this situation, as we would still know it would be wrong to register Elfdalian as a variant of Swedish, and we would still have the language subtag discussion. So no, the reason we're discussion this now, is not because of the openness of the RA, but _<i>because they've rejected an application for a language code that obviously deserves to be encoded as a language</i>_.<br></div><div> <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">But now some of you here seem to want that openness to be by-passed because it suits your purposes. We can’t have it both ways.<span class=""><font color="#888888"><u></u><u></u></font></span></span></p><span class=""><font color="#888888">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> </span></p></font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I'm not sure why communicating to the RA would "by-pass" openness; I think opposite, more communication between institutions means more openness. Efldalian had a review period where people could give their input, they can record the letter with this application to maintain openness. What they want to do with the issue is really up to them, but I think from the view of IETF it can be a good idea to send it if creating of a language subtag is a problem to give the RA chance to consider better the implications of their own decision. If creating a language subtag is not a problem then we can of course skip the letter and just assign the code.<br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>