Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c
dewell at adelphia.net
Fri Dec 15 07:41:55 CET 2006
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> I'm sorry this has gotten so confusing,
> are you +1
> * to 16thc and 17thc ?
> * to 16emes and 17emes ?
> * or to 16esiecl and 17esiecl ?
No, I had responded to Michael as follows:
>> Do members of this group think that century subtags are a good idea?
> I don't, but I'm not going to pursue this further.
and Addison and Mark Crispin wrote "+1" to this.
In other words, none of us think century subtags are a good idea, and
none of us is going to pursue it further.
I will try to honor Michael's wish and not use "+1" on this list, but I
note it is a very common and (usually) clear way of saying, "I agree
with the text quoted herein."
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages