Re: [Ltru] John Cowan throws in the towel on extlangs

Addison Phillips <> Thu, 29 November 2007 22:53 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxsGZ-0002vX-7z; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:53:55 -0500
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxsGY-0002vG-Cp for; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:53:54 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxsGY-0002v0-2c for; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:53:54 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxsGX-0003bi-IM for; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:53:53 -0500
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/y.rout) with ESMTP id lATMrduo082433; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:53:39 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent;; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XapaTGiW8DtYvnFss9QqxYKlhROy7ZRatHNVKME1No+3qxgAulLRKlOghm9mVTSu
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:53:39 -0800
From: Addison Phillips <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] John Cowan throws in the towel on extlangs
References: <> <> <007601c832d3$73a6d220$5af47660$@net> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

John Cowan wrote:
> Don Osborn scripsit:
>> Apologies in advance if this is a non-sequiteur to this particular thread,
>> but is there provision for new macrolanguages. A while back there was a
>> suggestion that we know them all, but I could suggest other possibilities
>> such as Runyakitara (aready mentioned), Oshiwambo, possible new mix for
>> Manding languages. This may be ISO 639 territory, but also would relate to
>> use of tags.
> In principle, 639-3/RA may create them at any time.  So far they have not been
> asked to do so.

Further, if John's towel stays thrown, it wouldn't impact RFC 4646bis. 
It *would* potentially require new information be placed into the 
registry (fallback or macrolanguage fields) and thus might influence 
various tagging choices.

Note that there is no difference between extlang and no-extlang on this: 
most enclosed languages would already be in the registry as primary 
language subtags and thus could not become extlang subtags after the fact.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

Ltru mailing list