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

John Cowan cowan at
Sun Dec 17 06:26:38 CET 2006

CE Whitehead scripsit:

> I have no problem with the dates or the codes (though I do note that 
> when the SIL languages are adopted which is going to be a bonanza in 
> terms of increasing the number of language tags available probably there 
> may be nevertheless a few groupings that are worth disputing; that is, 
> you do not have to adopt everything exactly as it's been encoded by 
> another body as some of the coding is arbitrary and merits discussion; 

That discussion belongs in another place, namely the ISO 639/RA-JAC,
which has different rules from ours.  What they decide on (and they
have made changes from the SIL coding), we accept, period.  We
only do variants (and, in principle, whole languages that for
some reason don't meet ISO criteria, but that is not expected to
ever happen).

> I'm going to try not to write again though on this to correct any 
> further assumptions on your part--except if I may vote let me know; I 
> will vote on one of my proposals.

"In the IETF, we don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.  We
believe in rough consensus and running code."  --unofficial motto
of the IETF

John Cowan                                <cowan at>
Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.
    -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list