Criteria for languages?

Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Dec 2 17:58:11 CET 2009

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of John Cowan

> What I'm asking is: if proposal 2009-048 passes the RA, is it better 
> for interoperability if people who tag new data that they know to be 
> in standard Latvian use the "lav" tag or the new "lvs" tag?

A further question: for those that want to tag content specifically as Standard Latvian, do we recommend "lvs" or "lav-lvs"? It takes a bit of reading in RFC5646 to figure out the answer. The first clue is this from section 2.2.2:

 3.  Extended language subtag records MUST include a 'Preferred-
       Value'.  The 'Preferred-Value' and 'Subtag' fields MUST be

So, one can surmise that the answer is that "lvs" would be recommended, though "lav-lvs" can also be used. But it's really not obvious.

And, I gather the process would be that "lvs" be registered with two records:

Type: language
Subtag: lvs
Description: Standard Latvian
Added: ...
Macrolanguage: lav


Type: extlang
Subtag: lvs
Description: Standard Latvian
Added: ...
Preferred-Value: lvs
Prefix: lav

Is that right?


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list