Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

Michael Everson everson at
Mon Feb 8 10:26:07 CET 2010

On 8 Feb 2010, at 09:18, Kent Karlsson wrote:

> Indeed, my position is that **NO** more *extlang* subtags should be
> registered. (That is easy for the reviewer too...)

Yes, Kent. I know. It has been explained to me that in the LTRU  
discussions Doug (for instance) took the view that

* the total set of extlang-able macrolanguages should be open to  
expansion when ISO 639-3 decides to convert an existing individual  
language code element to a macrolanguage

(in which case I should approve both lv and bnc)

and that you took the view that

* that the total set was intended to be fixed and not expandable

(in which case I should reject both lv and bnc)

Now John is saying that I should not be using *linguistic* judgement  
at all, but approve one and reject the other on the basis of knowledge  
which I did not have.

It seems to me that a hames was made of this by the LTRU. There's  
little to guide me, and the judgement I'm to make it isn't  
*linguistic*. So I'm afraid this group is going to have to rehash the  
basics of what extlangs are for, so that some sort of coherent policy  
can be set.

I would now like to call on Peter Constable for his opinion.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list