Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Feb 11 19:21:20 CET 2010

I thought I was clear: I agree with John.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:00 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

It is clear that there is something wrong with the RFC.

Apparently I cannot simply "Pass" until the community comes up with rational criteria for these "extlang subtags". A decision must be taken now. (For other things I might reject now and allow people to return later with a new proposal and more data.)

Nor can I make a judgement as to whether lv- should be extended but bnc- should not be on the basis of "quantity" of records used *to date*.

So zh- is extended for Chinese, but Quechua and Kurdish and Cree have not been so extended.

This makes no sense.

It seems to me that the "compromise" you came up with had more to do with stopping the argument than with any particular utility.

I have appealed to this community to assist me, so that my choice ends up not being a toin-coss, since I would rather not be criticized for making an arbitrary choice. Yet in the absence of quantitative data, the choice is, effectively, an arbitrary one.

John and Doug were clear. Kent was clear. The rest of you indulged in meta-blather that had nothing to do with the actual choice which, evidently must be taken.

Please do better. Make your comments and make them clearly.

Michael Everson *

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list