petercon at microsoft.com
Sun Oct 6 01:00:41 CEST 2013
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at ewellic.org]
> We could check the archives over the past four years (since RFC 5646 was
> published) to see what other changes have been mooted. That might help
> us decide whether the effort is justified. Keeping the scope tightly limited
> might help make a revision less painful than the previous two.
> Barring that, the most practical option seems to be 2. I realize this doesn't
> fully meet Peter's needs, but it might be better than nothing.
Agreed: Until there's an opportunity to update BCP 47, it would be useful to add this kind of info into the comments field -- that's better than not having any reflection of the knowledge.
More information about the Ietf-languages