Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at
Mon Feb 8 11:22:37 CET 2010

For the record, and only as a technical contributor (NOT as the co-chair 
of the former LTRU WG), I agree with John on which languages should get 
extlang treatment and which not.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2010/02/08 18:26, Michael Everson wrote:
> 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 *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#   mailto:duerst at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list