Doug Ewell wrote: > I don't mean that Esperanto is "good" because it has 2 million speakers > (Ethnologue) or Orcish is "bad" because it has only 30 words. Actually I didn't look for "orq", I was curious if that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossan_language ...somehow made it into the "C" category. I've no recipe how to identify nonsense, it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. Of course it could be wrong, it's difficult to draw the line somewhere. For your example Yinglish I couldn't decode John's examples: | Before I knew that he had said it in shiur, I was mechaven to the Rosh | Yeshiva's pshat in the Gemara. | So get off your tochus and write a letter to Joan Spanne [...] | kvetching about it. But that's an "L", no "C" and no "vanispamcruft" (en-x-wikipedi term defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VSCA) > That is pure cherry-picking You could say the same about variant or alpha 5..8 language registrations, somebody has to do the vetting. Otherwise all in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artistic_languages> could get subtags. > it WILL get this draft rejected by IESG. They didn't approve an unrestricted location registry. With less than 26*26*26 the registry is still in reasonable size limits. With 26*26*26*26 for alpha5..8 (variant or language) it's not, 50 MB would be IMO unacceptable. I've no idea where the IESG would draw the line, but at some point Michelle could offer an opinion on behalf of IANA. Frank _______________________________________________ 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.