Subject: [Ltru] Re: REQUEST for registration of variant subtag 'grabar'

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:53:00 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
>> I trust it is clear to all that I have not opposed the registration 
>> of a variant subtag for Grabar because I wish to manipulate any list 
>> against common culture and needed usage, or because I am trying to 
>> hide my ignorance. Rather, it is because I believe users needing a 
>> tag for Grabar content will be best served, and the overall coherence 
>> of our system of ISO 639 IDs and RFC 4646 tags will be optimized, if 
>> this variety is given an identifier in ISO 639 rather than being 
>> coded with a variant subtag.
>
> I think this is perfectly clear and I completely agree.
>
> I hope other members of this list will also comment on this in order 
> that we may move forward and respond to the request in the appropriate 
> manner; with a decision and, assuming others agree, direction to the 
> ISO 639 JAC.

To the extent my opinion on this matters, I thought Peter's intentions 
were clear and clearly stated, and at no time did I question or 
second-guess them.

--
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 

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:09:05 -0400

> were clear and clearly stated, and at no time did I question or 

+1

-- 
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers            John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is      [email-masked]
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.