Last call for ISO 15924-based updates

Michael Everson everson at
Tue Mar 17 10:07:29 CET 2009

On 17 Mar 2009, at 04:33, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> I note, however, that at Doug’s behest, the reviewer extended the  
> period for this subtag by two weeks on 13 March. We must therefore  
> wait until 27 March, at which point anyone can petition the reviewer  
> for a decision on the original registration.

Is the full two weeks obligatory in extension? If an extension is  
granted because "two weeks were not enough", it's not unreasonable to  
say, "well, we're good with an answer now after a few more days". Not  
that it matters.

So far I've made up my mind on this one. No one proposed any "health  
warning" text that wasn't more directive than comments should be, so  
I'm satisfied with the original record.

> Otherwise, I hope that he will approve the original record for  
> inclusion, noting that comments may be registered in the future.

Nihil obstat.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list