Comments for region splits

Doug Ewell dewell at
Sat Apr 22 19:08:06 CEST 2006

Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:

>> I'm still not really sure what the argument is.  Is it simply that 
>> the comment is unnecessary, or that it might open a floodgate?
> It seems a bit unnecessary, given that there are more urgent things, 
> IMHO, to comment about. E.g., macro-languages, other "larger" 
> mergers/splits than this one (after RFC 1766), dialects (no, I'm NOT 
> going to suggest registering hundreds of sv dialect variants), and 
> historic orthographic differences (but within, say, the last 100 years 
> or so).

If there are more urgent things to comment about, then by all means, 
please bring them up on this list, so we can discuss them and consider 
using them to improve the Registry.  That would seem much more 
beneficial than trying to discourage discussion of a lesser issue.

Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list