Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c

Doug Ewell dewell at
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 mailing list