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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:50:46 -0800

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> Recommending a transition from zh to cmn, yue etc. would have some 
> merits, but making that transition would be much more of an uphill 
> climb.

But no differently for "cmn" than for "yue", right?

If we say we are recommending that users of "zh-yue" switch to "yue", 
but that users of "zh-cmn" leave things as they are or switch to "zh", 
we are effectively saying that "zh" is equivalent to "cmn".

> During the teleconf call this week, those of us that participated came 
> to consensus on recommending these directions for 4646bis (at least, 
> this is the understanding I came away with):

Thank you very much for this summary; it will help me put together a new 
draft.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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