Anomaly in upcoming registry

[Doug Ewell]

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> I never meant to suggest that we could disregard any arbitrary 
> split/merger decisions. In particular, we should *not* go deciding 
> things such as (hypothetical) that Bosnian should be completely 
> separate and not encompassed by sh. The *only* kind of decision I was 
> discussing was whether everything deprecated by ISO 639 should be 
> deprecated by us, or whether we could deprecate things not deprecated 
> in ISO 639, and whether it matters which part of ISO 639 does what: 
> I'm suggesting that we can make our own independent (non-)deprecation 
> decisions without needing a precedent from one or another part of ISO 
> 639.

Well, even if it's not prohibited, I hope we can express darned good 
reasons for doing so on the list.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ