Latvian extlang subtags
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Jan 23 19:38:09 CET 2010
Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
> I think there should be no additions to the set of extlangs.
> I see the extlangs as purely a one-off for getting through
> a compromise in LTRU. I see them as something static, not
> to be added to.
Whereas I see the compromise as having been a reflection of continuing
reality and not a petty, one-off political battle.
People talk about "Chinese" when they might say "Mandarin" or
"Cantonese" if pressed for specifics. Likewise, so I have been told,
people talk about "Latvian" when it turns out they might really mean
either Standard Latvian or Latgalian. If this is the criterion by which
"zh" was assigned extlangs, then that same criterion should be applied
to Latvian, and this decision process (yea or nay) should continue as
long as ISO 639-3/RA decides to convert individual languages into
macrolanguages. Your fundamental objection to the extlang mechanism
should not enter into this.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages