Re: Last call: Latvian (and Bontok) extlang subtags

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> Note that the notion of *extlangs* is a quirk. It was the result of a 
> compromise in LTRU. I see no need to work further on it.

But where you and I disagree is in whether the compromise was intended 
to be closed-ended, applying only to those seven initial macrolanguages, 
or whether it was supposed to be applicable to any macrolanguages 
assigned in the future.  Admittedly, we did not think there would be 
many.

I think we need to focus on getting Michael to understand the principles 
involved, independently of campaigning for our own point of view.  I 
have tried to represent your position fairly when explaining it to 
Michael.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages