Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 06:51:49 -0600

Q1: B
Q2: B

This is as neutral as I can get.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, 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 

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

---

From: Nicolas Krebs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 00:13:37 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote 

>Hi -

Hello, 

>As co-chair...
>
>Later in this message I will be asking some questions.  Please
>respond to this mailing list so that the co-chairs can decide
>what to instruct the editors to do regarding the general disposition
>(*not* detailed wordsmithing!) of the extlang question.

>Q1: The current draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-14.txt)
>    does away with the "extlang" production. Possible responses: (pick ONE)
>        A - I like this.
>        B - I can live with this.
>        C - I object to this.   
>
>Q2: We could go back to using "extlang" in the grammar, requiring its
>    use for representing "encompassed" languages that are being added.
>    Possible responses:  (pick ONE)
>        A - I would like this.
>        B - I could live with this.
>        C - I would object to this.

Q1 B

Q2 B

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:44:41 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> However, the recent discussion indicates that the group doesn't feel 
> much urgency in moving on.

For my part, if I felt that way I probably wouldn't have written 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg10417.html .