Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags
petercon at microsoft.com
Tue Feb 9 03:21:46 CET 2010
When we created the initial data for RFC 5646, the qualitative issue was simple: there was *zero* prior use in a BCP 47 context of any language tags not already in ISO 639-1/-2. Since RFC 5646 was only relatively recently approved, the quantity is still going to be extremely limited. Of course, the more time goes by, the greater the uncertainty will be.
See other mail in which I am suggesting that the RA practice be revised in a way in which we can avoid this problem in the future: don't change any existing entry into a macrolanguage.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 6:07 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags
On 8 Feb 2010, at 14:00, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I think we need to focus on getting Michael to understand the
> principles involved, independently of campaigning for our own point of
Michael understands the "principles" involved. The decision is not "linguistic", however. it is quantitative.
This is the fourth time I have mentioned this.
Assuming that I am to approve "frequently used" extlang subtags, I must have some means for making a quantitative assessment. I've no way of doing this. But you've tied my hands (you don't want me to reject both proposals and you don't want me to accept both proposals) and I've asked for criteria that I might use and you haven't given any.
So in the absence of any meaningful help for the Reviewer here, fine, I'll just believe the quantitative assessment given by you and John.
There's nothing else I can do about it.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages