Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

My enquiry is, why do we need Unicode/CLDR to be the registration authority for the -t extension?  We have a perfectly good registration authority for subtags that does not require any payment for votes and does not require subscribing to another list.  I have no problem with the -t extension mechanism as proposed (that I can see).

Admittedly, I haven't looked at BCP47 lately.  I was unaware of any changes to the application procedures for registration of subtags or extensions.  I obviously need to read it.

Best wishes

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: Roozbeh Pournader [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 07 July 2011 22:46
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'Pete Resnick'; 'LTRU Working Group'; 'CLDR list'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:13 +0100, Debbie Garside wrote:
> But I still don't see why it needs to be taken out of IETF.  Where is
> the added value?  Where are discussions held?  Why create another list
> when we already have IETF-languages?

My understanding is that you are not objecting to the Unicode Consortium
registering authority for a BCP 47 extension subtag, but you are
objecting to BCP 47 section 3.7, right? You basically want to change BCP
47 section 3.7 to have more restrictions on the extension subtag
registering authorities, right?

Roozbeh