[Ltru] Political motivation (was: Re: Geocoordinates)
"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sat, 14 March 2009 03:23 UTC
Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8173A6B2D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyaUwVT-1z6N for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 02D1B3A69EA for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22476 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2009 03:23:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.44) with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2009 03:23:57 -0000
Message-ID: <86E4BA031EEC47C28A1338227E2B9136@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.85.1236970805.29838.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:23:55 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: [Ltru] Political motivation (was: Re: Geocoordinates)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:23:19 -0000
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote: >> There was too much of that already in the discussions about >> Belarusian variants. > > But you did agree that if there were two varieties of Belarussian > writing online it was appropriate to have subtags for both. Absolutely correct. But that does not mean the discussions needed to be characterized by each side accusing the other of political motives, or fighting over which variation was "better." Perhaps I should rephrase: ietf-languages needs to be vigilant in not accepting applications for subtags that don't represent legitimate differences, or arguments that imply that one variation is superior to another, due to such applications or arguments being primarily motivated by politics. -- 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