extlang (was Re: Suggested language for "mis" (Re: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"))

["Mark Davis" <[e-mail]>]

I'll move this to a different thread, so we can focus on the "mis" language
under that title.

You had said: "Are we almost ready to go with 4646bis except for "mis"?  Do
any other issues needs to be resolved?  If so, can we spend some time on
those issues as well?"

There are at least three open issues listed in
http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html.

Extlang is one of them. I'll step back a bit, since it appears that we don't
have consensus about making a change in extlang from RFC 4646.

So we need to revive the discussion from back in March.

Mark

On 6/16/07, Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:
[snip]

You had

> >
> > Example - cleaning up extlang to still be reserved.
>
> Whoa, time out.  When did we agree NOT to use the extlang mechanism for
> new
> 639-3 languages that have a macrolanguage?  I know you wanted that, but
> where was the consensus that makes these wishes into "fixes that need to
> be
> made"?  This is why I wish we were using the issue tracker as we did for
> 3066bis.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>


-- 
Mark

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru