Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

[Leif Halvard Silli <[e-mail]>]

Mark Davis 2008-05-27 05.03:

> At least one of those voting appears to be against Q1 while not 
> realizing that Q2 also means no "no-nb" or "no-nn". (At least by the 
> text of pre December.)

One of those can tell you that your interpretation of his vote  is 
wrong. (But why not, when everything else I say gets turned and 
twisted.)

The one steadfast opinion I have had, is that since Norwegian and 
Serbo-Croatian and perhaps others two letter coded languages that 
are macrolanguages or encompassed langauges cannot be part of the 
Extlang approach, then no languages should follow the Extlang 
approach. This was also the reason behind why I made a proposal 
which would have made it possible to include even Norwegian.

Because, I thought we would all be given better treatment, better 
understanding of the Macrolanguage issues, if we had the same 
approach for all Macrolanguages. And I also therefore, while 
extlang was ruled out, tried to work with Addision to get 
improvements for the RFC to make is as good as possible, without 
Extlang.

However, finally I came to the conclusion, that an extlang 
approach is what I would have wanted for Norwegian. And therefore 
I decided to vote for Extlang so that at least other languages in 
similar situations could have the benefit of it.

So, I did not believe that I voted for anything else than the 
co-chair asked for. (He refuted my idea before we voted.) And it 
was Doug who suggested a vote on my proposal about allowing 
2-letter codes as extlang codes - so I must ask him to take 
responsibility for that that. When Doug took up the issue, and 
commented it, then I wanted to defend it, though. And it is true 
that I did not publically "put down the arms" before Doug asked 
me, after the vote.

I hope this clarifies.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru