How extlang assignments were determined (was: Re: Latvian extlang subtags)

Doug Ewell doug at
Mon Jan 25 14:37:15 CET 2010

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> 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.)

I assume you meant RFC 5645, since 4645 didn't deal with extended 
language subtags.

RFC 5645 was Informative, and the entire purpose of its prose sections 
(as opposed to the data set being transmitted to IANA) was to explain 
how the data set was arrived at.  I thought the rationales were 
completely appropriate.

Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list