Another attempt at plain language

Michael Everson everson at
Fri Sep 4 10:12:20 CEST 2015

Specific and well-defined ones would be few and far between, I’d think.

> On 4 Sep 2015, at 07:01, Martin J. Dürst <duerst at> wrote:
> I would agree, and guess that many on this list would agree, that a specific and well-defined CNL would be in scope (mostly through a specific variant subtag registration) for BCP 47.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list