Re: [Ltru] Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

[Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>]

Title: Re: [Ltru] Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Well, no, because pes and prs already share a macrolanguage, namely fas. See http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp (as well as our own draft registry update).

But I agree that the example you point at is no longer a good one. I can't really give another example (but I wonder how closely related the Frisian languages are, but they don't share a macrolanguage code...)

    /kent k



Den 2009-02-02 19.38, skrev "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>:

Addison; Are we taking substantial editorial corrections yet?  Or are we waiting for the copyright work around?
 
If we are taking substantial changes, I have one (I also have a few glaring typos):
 
http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt

4.1.1 par 5, last sentence
 
{ ORIGINAL TEXT }
 
"For example, Romanian ('ro') and
   Moldavian ('mo') do not share a macrolanguage, but are far more
   closely related to each other than Cantonese ('yue') and Wu ('wuu') ,
   which do share a macrolanguage."

{! COMMENT:  the [ro] [mo] example is a bit of a problem as one of the subtags has now been deprecated; 'pes' and 'prs', Eastern (Dari) and Western Farsi, would be better examples I think}
 
Thanks.
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

---

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

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