[Ietf-languages] Last word on 'gallo'

Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> Sat, 07 August 2021 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD00B3A0BC1 for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNV1hpI0x6cF for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667533A0BBD for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOPLPOB1E4 ([71.237.1.75]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id CRuQmpSTxnpYxCRuSmcgUQ; Sat, 07 Aug 2021 12:23:04 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=GPzNrsBK c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=610edd98 a=6nY1uNNCgC/8Ccg2lpAcFA==:117 a=6nY1uNNCgC/8Ccg2lpAcFA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=nORFd0-XAAAA:8 a=oKgjAyoSM1JQvhP8ON0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=AYkXoqVYie-NGRFAsbO8:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: doug@ewellic.org
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ietf-languages@ietf.org
Cc: 'Amanda Baber via RT' <iana-prot-param@iana.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 13:23:03 -0600
Message-ID: <002501d78bc1$a59d2fd0$f0d78f70$@ewellic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdeLv/+u5gI5o5/eRXid7FYfp1uunQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfHbiwjBlSOe29IOq0tx/U9GZGgp4NwXSCUr5YqjJnnP9i3dQVoa7Qvh4qGJVmWVhGfLGcw1DLgy+IjMffFneVNd19fpzlt6iBHPx++8apRHtpop9PEjx FQUfI8qlSVQfUE3j5FtY2IhSNTrFWrhF1CtHRqqBNgW6gRf422zXlgpFchBPdEHPBivv3TcaDwDoM+JTPzSIb5kYyOO/vAHTw0sXRkvqmeWRT6aM5xYb6gN9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/PKjH3AmnJF3YuevovLCK3NiYxGo>
Subject: [Ietf-languages] Last word on 'gallo'
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Review of requests for language tag registration according to BCP 47 \(RFC 4646\)" <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 19:23:10 -0000

The subtag 'gallo' has been added to the Language Subtag Registry, as subscribers to the ietf-languages-announcements list will have already seen.

I would like to thank Amanda Baber of IANA for noticing what neither I nor anyone else noticed: that both the record and the registration form showed:

Type: language

instead of the correct

Type: variant

This crept in because I copied the paperwork from a recent ISO 639-3–based language subtag addition, and forgot to change that. At 5 letters long, 'gallo' could indeed have been a non-ISO language subtag, but as we have never registered one before (and very likely never will), Amanda thought to ask first, and changed it herself before updating the Registry.

Between this and the wording change in the registration form to remove "I" in a statement about research, let's all please remember to review the forms for new and changed subtags *during the review period*. This request actually had TWO review periods, lasting four weeks. That should be plenty of time for things like this, especially my flat-out error, to be spotted and corrected. I do sometimes make mistakes and requesters do sometimes employ wording that others may find nonstandard or not preferred. This is what we have two-week review periods for.

Sorry. I feel better now.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org