Doug Ewell wrote: > that is the kind of invention and presumption that, as John > Cowan said, is really better suited to the role of > ietf-languages than this WG. (Not that some of us won't be > right back there when this is over!) At one point in time you'll have an initial registry, with the help of the languages list or not, that is "date B". And if at "date B" GG, IM, and JE are not in the registry then you'd need 831, 832, and 833. The UN page has now 830 _and_ 831 + 832, that's certainly odd. Maybe they have their own "transition period" (?) Or it's a bug on their Web page. Or they have serious problems with our "same piece of..." rule ;-) Or they keep 830 for Sark, Alderney, and anything that doesn't necessarily belong to 831 and 832 - no, that's probably wrong. > unless the British Standards Institution requests them. We could appeal to their Queen, oops, Duke. Delaying "date B" until that issue is resolved is no plan. If there's a delay anyway for the fine tuning of the Suppress-Scripts it's okay. > we should really do the same thing for 833 that we do for 831 > and 832, whatever that is. My proposal is to remove 833 from > the registry as well. No problem for a timestamp before "date B". But if the initial registry completely excludes three regions, or if we have to wait, then I'm not yet convinced that that's a good idea. Bye. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.