Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:
-- At the time this document was created, there were no examples of this kind of subtag. Future registrations of this type are discouraged: an attempt to register any new proposed primary language MUST be made with ISO 639. Proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-JAC are unlikely to meet the criteria for primary language subtags and are thus unlikely to be registered. --- (minus)This seems redundant and over-explained. If being registered with ISO is close to being a criteria in itself, then saying that those that are rejected by ISO are "unlikely to meet the criteria" undermines that very point.
Disagree. We need all that wording to clarify that "being registered with ISO" is not quite a criterion in itself. It is possible, conceivable, imaginable that a primary language subtag could be registered in the LSR without being accepted for ISO 639 -- it's just very unlikely. Saying that it's not possible at all, or implying that by removing this wording, would be an unwanted technical change.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.