Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

Peter Constable petercon at
Tue Feb 9 02:41:07 CET 2010

It's not at all a matter of Bontoc being less important. It is simply a question of whether we believe "bnc" is widely used for content in Central, Northern or Southwestern Bontoc.

I agree with John wrt "bnc-*": I don't think there's a need.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 4:54 PM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

On 8 Feb 2010, at 00:00, John Cowan wrote:

> Michael Everson scripsit:

>> I do not like this new "lav", I really do not. However, I approve the 
>> two extended subtags.
> "lav" will not be a legal subtag, because "lv" is available, so that's 
> not an issue.

You did not understand me but no matter.

>>> (2) Whether three new extended language subtags shall be created for 
>>> Northern Bontok ("bnc-rbk"), Central Bontok ("bnc-lbk"), and 
>>> Southwestern Bontok ("bnc-vbk"), which are new ISO 639-3 code 
>>> elements encompassed by Bontok ('bnc'), recently reclassified as a 
>>> macrolanguage and renamed from "Central Bontoc."
>> Logically I must also approve this.
> Not really.  Historically we have only approved extlang subtags for 
> use with primary language subtags in wide use:  "lv" is in wide use, 
> but "bnc" is not.

Oh, I really don't think we should discriminate in that way. Latvians important, Bontocs not. No, no.

> As I said before, I'd prefer to se "lv-ltg" and "lv-lvs" available, 
> but not "bnc-*".

Your rationale? Is it other than "Bontocs not"?

Michael Everson *

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list