Doug Ewell scripsit: > I still don't know why we would want to do that. The Language Subtag > Reviewer and ietf-languages list can decide that a language requested > for independent registration isn't "good enough," but if it's in an ISO > standard, who are they (or we) to say? Yesterday, following Peter's suggestion, I petitioned the 639-3/RA and the Linguist List maintainers (who are the sub-registrars for ancient and constructed languages) to remove Ceqli = Tceqli (same language), Delason, Linga, Jakelimota, and Orcish from the list as insufficiently documented or used or both; also Glosa (because it is a dialect of Interglossa). Anthony Aristar of Linguist List wrote back expressing substantial agreement (and using the phrase "slipped through the cracks"), so I think we can expect them to go away. The remaining languages (Afrihili, Brithenig, Dutton World Speedwords, Esperanto, Ido, Interglossa, Interlingue, Interlingua de IALA, Lojban, Laadan, Novial, Occidental, Quenya, Romanova, Sindarin, Klingon, Volapuk) all easily meet the relevant standards for literature and documentation: they have, or have had, communities of use. I think therefore that we should drop the subject. > >Or preserved as a comment: > > > >Subtag: xzh > >Description: Zhang-Zhung > >Comment: Ancient > > I kind of see the writing on the wall here. So do I. If a comment is that structured, make it a field. > If a currently non-extinct language that is widespread enough to serve > as a macrolanguage goes extinct during our lifetime, it would amaze me. +1 > Where did we promise that no new fields would ever be added? This would > also affect Addison's proposal to replace Suppress-Script with something > new. +1 -- "Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.