Latvian extlang subtags

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Sun Jan 24 23:58:01 CET 2010

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at 
Sun Jan 24 00:57:56 CET 2010 

> Hi -

>> From: "John Cowan" <cowan at>
>> To: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 at>
>> Cc: <ietf-languages at>; "Doug Ewell" <doug at>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: Latvian extlang subtags
>> ...
>> But not arbitrarily selected, rather selected on the criteria that (a)
>> the macrolanguage subtag had been widely used in IT and (b) there was
>> a single dominant variety.  Latvian qualifies on both counts.

>(a) was certainly a consideration.
>As far as I can recall, (b) was not.  I do not know why (b) would have been
>a valid criterion.  We would (I believe) have come to the same conclusion
>regarding 'zh' regardless of the Cantonese:Mandarin ratio.
I agree with Randy here.


My objection to extension language status for Standard Latvian and Latgalian was that, as far as I could tell, from a perfunctory glance at the online documents specified in the change request, the tag [lv] was used primarily to tag Standard Latvian. 


(No doubt I have not located it all . . .  please let me know if documents other than those tagged by the Standard Latvian/Latgalian split change requestor are tagged as [lv]; thanks!)


(Another note:  I really do not know whether the list of extended languages is still open or not and I defer to the rest of you on that issue.)


C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at
> Randy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list