Then explain it. 2017-06-13 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>:
> Hoi, > Yes you do. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be >> decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection? >> >> 2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <[email protected]>: >> >>> I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not >>> something to be adopted here without a proper vote. >>> >>> Michael Everson >>> >>> On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no >>> ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote. >>> > Thanks, >>> > GerardM >>> > >>> > Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg < >>> [email protected]> >>> > Forgot one important point: >>> > >>> > :''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with >>> a valid BCP 47 code.'' >>> > This would be a novelty. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Langcom mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
