RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal (updated)

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

I would also be happy with "Vast majority"... 

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon at microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 04 August 2006 19:19
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal (updated)
> 
> > From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk]
> 
> 
> > I think this could form quite a contentious statement and 
> should not 
> > be added as is. There are many cases where a linguistic 
> entity can be 
> > treated as a dialect by some and a language by others and 
> vice versa.
> > 
> > Perhaps a better statement would be:
> > 
> > ----
> > 
> > These additional code elements provide coverage for the majority of 
> > known human languages in use today.
> > 
> > ----
> 
> Fine with me, but I'd go for "vast majority". But as I said, 
> I'm also OK with the text that Martin had drafted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Constable
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru