Missing subtags 003 and 172

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Sat Jul 31 00:04:06 CEST 2010

On 30 Jul 2010, at 22:45, Kent Karlsson wrote:

> I did object, see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010469.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010473.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010478.html
> None of these were responded to (w.r.t. sa/san being Classical Sanskrit), that I noticed anyway. I don't think "we" can interpret sa/san any wider just for LSR. 

I saw it. ISO 639 says "sa" and "san" are "Sanskrit" (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php) and I accepted John Cowan's rationale about hypernyms and hyponyms.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list