A stake in the ground
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Dec 7 14:26:56 CET 2009
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> It is not clear to me that there is a "macrolanguage" that encompasses
> Latvian and anything else.
> This should be decided by LINGUISTICS -- not by possibly erroneous
> taggings by the LoC or anyone else.
For the record, on this list I am assuming ISO 639-3/RA will approve the
requested actions (create two new code elements and convert 'lav' to a
macrolanguage). I am only discussing whether we should make extlangs
out of the new encompassed languages, and what the best choice of subtag
will be for a given tagging scenario, GIVEN that the RA has approved all
of these actions. Obviously, if they don't, we have different choices
(or none) to make.
We can discuss whether the RA should make these decisions or not, and
convey our thoughts to the RA -- and I believe I started this mess by
calling attention to the proposals for Latvian and Lithuanian, which I
thought might be controversial, and questioning whether their extremely
similar wording was really the work of two different individuals as
claimed -- but these are ultimately the RA's decisions, and they are not
bound by our list discussions.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages