Latvian extlang subtags

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at
Mon Jan 25 08:47:42 CET 2010

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan at>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Latvian extlang subtags
> So your claim of typicality doesn't really stand up.

Let's be clear: I was referring to the set actually chosen
by the WG, as spelled out in section 2.2 of of RFC 4645.
I think that set exemplifies the weight given to existing
practice in deciding whether to add extended language subtags
with designated macrolanguage subtags as prefixes.  (The
rationale given there notwithstanding...  Since rationales are
by nature not normative, they're best omitted from a spec, 
but not worth arguing about if they'll help bring the work
to conclusion.)


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list