LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN

Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Feb 10 17:03:51 CET 2005


I gave references that demonstrated the script-usage contrast, which is
the significant issue for the registration in question. I followed the
example in the already-approved registrations for az-Arab, az=Cyrl, etc.

On the basis of established precedent, I don't see how the documentation
provided can be considered insufficient.


Peter Constable


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:24 AM
> To: Peter Constable; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
> 
> 
> 
> --On 3. februar 2005 13:52 -0800 Peter Constable
<petercon at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > References:
> > http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm
> > http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/khk.htm (Cyrillic script)
> > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-cyrillic.htm
(Cyrillic
> > script)
> > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-traditional.htm
> > (Mongolian script)
> 
> The references for mn-Mong are:
> 
> References:
> http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm
> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/khk.htm (Cyrillic script)
> http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-cyrillic.htm (Cyrillic
> script)
> http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-traditional.htm
> (Mongolian script)
> 
> This appears to be the exact same set as those given for mn-Mong-CN,
and
> are thus unlikely to give any guidance on the difference between
mn-Mong
> (no country code) and mn-Mong-CN (with country code).
> 
> I recommend that this second registration be rejected as "insufficient
> documentation".
> 
>                        Harald



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list