Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

[CE Whitehead <[e-mail]>]

Forgot to cc the list.
Best,
--C. E. [e-mail] 

From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:36:33 -0400









Thanks for the info.Best,
--C. E. [e-mail] 
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:36:49 -0700
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag




No. Mark is saying that we should publish the draft without a ‘t0’ “mechanism” subtag and then consider adding one later if there is need. Addison From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 6:41 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag Hi. From: Mark Davis â <mark at macchiato.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:56:38 -0700
> I agree; so I think we ought to see how everything works first, before extending.  I assume this means the proposal is on hold.  Is there any point now in forwarding it on to another list (such as lingualist; I can do so as I have joined that) to get feedback; or do you just waiting to get feedback on the transliteration scheme from places like ala-lc (and then perhaps on how the scheme might work for transcription & speech recognition  from the ISPs/developers/researchers? on this list). Thanks if you can clarify this. Best, --C. E. [e-mail]> Mark> â Il meglio à lâinimico del bene â