Re: [Ltru] Geocoordinates

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> . . . & all that's needed for now is to tag language use that's 
> current on the internet not the dialects and varieties used in every 
> corner of the globe, not till they get online; it's the need to look 
> at variants that might be overlooked with the overlooking perceived as 
> a political slight that makes it especially important to have a method 
> for registering new variants . . .  )

I agree that ietf-languages and user-requested variants should be 
retained, but worrying about registering subtags to remove a perception 
of political bias is tantamount to confessing that our existing subtags 
are inherently filled with political bias.

People need to understand that language tags and subtags are not about 
making political statements; they're about identifying content by 
language and language variety.  We need to continue to drive that point 
home.  And ietf-languages needs to continue to be vigilant in not 
accepting subtag applications or arguments that are primarily motivated 
by politics.  There was too much of that already in the discussions 
about Belarusian variants.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ