> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Leif Halvard Silli > In that regard: Do you think that it is possible that extlang in > itself could be misperceived by ISO? Could the ISO think that LTRU > *wants* them to define Macrolanguaes, which then would become > extlang tagged - or something like that? Or, could ISO begin > wanting to interfer with this group, or perhaps refrain from > defining macrolanguages, picking other methods for grouping > languages, because they don't like the extlang tagging that it > leads to? OK, I guess we're even now on the second-guessing business. (My apologies for coming across that way.) The ISO 639 JAC has never once discussed extlang. The initial innovation of macrolanguages in drafts of 639-3 was influenced by RFC 3066 and existing registered language tags, as I have explained in detail enough times now, and future decisions regarding macrolanguages made by the ISO 639 JAC or TCs 37 or 46 *should* be taking into account any potential impact on BCP 47 (which currently is none, and depending on the final form of 4646bis may remain none). Neither the ISO 639 JAC or TCs 36 or 46 has every discussed the LTRU WG that I am aware of. Peter _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.