gmane.ietf.languages

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

CE Whitehead — 2012-05-07T16:18:09

Hi.

Doug Ewell 
    doug at ewellic.org
       

    Sat May  5 01:46:22 CEST 2011


Agreed with Doug that this seems to be a "preferred display name."
I myself am somewhat "lukewarm" (meaning not particularly excited) about our adding this description, since I'm not sure whether it's within scope either, but I feel safest deferring to the rest of the list as to what's in scope regarding the added description.
.
Yes I agree; the other three registrations should go through regardless, in my opinion also.
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com
 > --
"       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Registrations for Slovenian

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:08:46

Hello,
in the next mails I will send 1 request for extension and 3 requests for new subtags, all for Slovenian.
The first request is for an additional name for Slovenian, "Slovene" as it is also used a lot.
The other three: I've been working on a corpus of historical Slovene lately, and found that I would need tags for orthographical variants of Slovenian used in the XIX century. And, as it seems nobody else has yet proposed these tags, I'm doing so now. 
If the forms lack some information or should be corrected, I'll be happy to do so.
All the best,

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-metelko

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:14:31

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: metelko
Description: Slovene in Metelko alphabet
Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Franc Serafin
  Metelko and used from 1825 to 1833.

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the historical Metelko
alphabet, which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by
borrowing (and modifying) letters from Cyrillic.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metelko_alphabet

Stabej, Marko. Franc Serafin Metelko in Metelčica. In (Janez Cvirn, ed.) 
Slovenska Kronika XIX. stoletja. (2001). Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-metelko" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for
transcribing and modernising such texts, e.g. for text search in
cultural heritage digital libraries. E.g. the National and University
Library of Slovenia has plans to digitise about 5,000 pages of books
written in the Metelko alphabet.


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-dajnko

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:12:53

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: dajnko
Description: Slovene in Dajnko alphabet
Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Peter Dajnko
  and used from 1824 to 1839 mostly in Styria (in what is now Eastern
  Slovenia).

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the historical Dajnko
alphabet, which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by new
letters.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajnko_alphabet

Stabej, Marko. Peter Dajnko in njegova Dajnčica. In (Janez Cvirn, ed.) 
Slovenska Kronika XIX. stoletja. (2001). Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-dajnko" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for
transcribing and modernising such texts, e.g. for text search in
cultural heritage digital libraries. E.g. the National and University
Library of Slovenia has plans to digitise about 4,000 pages of books
written in the Dajnko alphabet.


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-bohoric

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:13:06

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: bohoric
Description: Slovene in Bohorič alphabet

Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Adam Bohorič
  in 1584 and used from the first printed Slovene book and up to the
  mid-19th century.

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the Bohorič alphabet
which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by using the long s,
digraphs, etc.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohori%C4%8D_alphabet

Bohorič, Adam, and Branko Berčič. Arcticae Horulae. Ljubljana:
Mladinska knjiga, 1970. Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-bohoric" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for modernising
such texts, e.g. for text search in cultural heritage digital libraries.


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:10:07

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: language
Subtag: sl
Description: Slovenian
Description: Slovene
Suppress-Script: Latn

6. Any other relevant information:

The purpose of this registration is to add the Description "Slovene"
to the 'sl' language tag. "Slovenian" is used more often but "Slovene" is
also quite frequent: Google search on "Slovenian language" gives 18,6
million hits, while "Slovene language" gives 8,7.


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

FWD: New proposed T extension subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-26T18:37:57

Forwarded from the CLDR Users list, for your information.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New proposed T extension subtags
From: Rick McGowan <rick< at >unicode.org>
Date: Thu, April 26, 2012 11:40 am
To: cldr-users< at >unicode.org, unicore< at >unicode.org

BCP47 language tags can use extension T for identifying transformed 
content, or indicating requests for transformed content, as described in

rfc6497 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497 . For those interested, there

is a proposal for new Extension T fields in the following web page. 
Feedback on the proposal is welcome.

http://cldr.unicode.org/development/development-process/design-proposals/t-extension-fields

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Request to register private-use variant subtags

CE Whitehead — 2012-04-07T02:57:36

Sorry for the delay in my response.
The codes reserved for private use for language, Script, region vary slightly:
qaa - qtz: language
Qaaa - Qabx: script
QM-QZ (also AA, XA-XZ): region

Thus I do not know whether qxaaa - qx999999 would be the most appropriate choices.

Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org

Sat Mar 31 01:51:14 CEST 2012
I tend to concur with Doug, that rather than registering the whole set of gxaaa - qx999999 variant codes, one would need to redo RFC 5646, and include the information about the new reserved codes in that document.

I am unsure as to whether a variant like qxqxqxqx or qzqzqzqz could be registered for this purpose.
The information from RFC 5646, starting with the second bullet, seems to say "no:"
" o Dialect or other divisions or variations within a language, its
orthography, writing system, regional or historical usage,
transliteration or other transformation, or distinguishing
variation MAY be registered as variant subtags. An example is the
'rozaj' subtag (the Resian dialect of Slovenian).

" o The addition or maintenance of fields (generally of an
informational nature) in tag or subtag records as described in
Section 3.1 is allowed. Such changes are subject to the stability
provisions in Section 3.4. This includes 'Description',
'Comments', 'Deprecated', and 'Preferred-Value' fields for
obsolete or withdrawn codes, or the addition of 'Suppress-Script'
or 'Macrolanguage' fields to primary language subtags, as well as
other changes permitted by this document, such as the addition of
an appropriate 'Prefix' field to a variant subtag.

" o The addition of records and related field value changes necessary
to reflect assignments made by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166-1, and
UN M.49 as described in Section 3.4 is allowed."
However,

" This document leaves the decision on what subtags or changes to
subtags are appropriate (or not) to the registration process
described in Section 3.5."
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com
> Addison is correct: the only use case for this appears to be to solve a transitory programming problem. The -x- mechanism exists to solve the problem of encoding language variations that don't have a registered subtag.

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Request to register private-use variant subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-03-30T23:51:14

I don't support this, and I believe the registration of a new 'begin..end' private-use block would require a revision of BCP 47.

Addison is correct: the only use case for this appears to be to solve a transitory programming problem. The -x- mechanism exists to solve the problem of encoding language variations that don't have a registered subtag.

Private-use language, script, and region subtags (like 'qaa') weren't invented by or for BCP 47; they exist in the core standards (ISO 639, 3166, 15924) for applications that can't use the BCP 47 -x- mechanism.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Request to register private-use variant subtags

John Cowan — 2012-03-30T20:40:20

   LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
   1. Name of requester: John Cowan
   2. E-mail address of requester: cowan< at >ccil.org
   3. Record Requested:

      Type: variant
      Subtag: qxaaa..qx999999
      Description: Private use

   4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

        All variant subtags beginning with the letters 'qx', with from 3
        to 5 following letters or digits, are reserved for private use.
        This is parallel to the existing reservations for language,
        script, and region subtags, and serves the same purposes.

   5. Reference to published description
      of the language (book or article):  None
   6. Any other relevant information:

        The use of "-x-variant" is semantically equivalent to a
        private variant subtag, but in a system where singletons (or
        'x' specifically) are syntactically disallowed, private variant
        subtags allow the creation of tags with identical syntax to those
        using registered variant subtags.  2,238,974,784 subtags should
        suffice for all purposes.

Private Use Variant Subtag

Gordon P. Hemsley — 2012-03-30T16:39:18

Hello all,

I'm in the process of implementing some BCP 47–related parsing, and
I'm using private use subtags as a placeholder for subtags that will
be output as-is, rather than being mapped to something else. The
problem is, there do not appear to be any variant subtags set aside
for private use.

So I have a few questions:
(1) Am I allowed to just use unregistered variant subtags in the hope
that they never get registered? (I'm guessing that's frowned upon.)
(2) Would it be possible to register or set aside one or more variant
subtags as private use?
(3) If the answer to (1) and/or (2) is "no", what is the recommended
way to test always-meaningless variant subtags?

Thanks,
Gordon

Proposed T extension fields

Mark Davis ☕ — 2012-03-27T20:41:31

In case people are interested, there is a proposal for the addition of new *
rfc6497 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497> *extension T fields in

http://cldr.unicode.org/development/development-process/design-proposals/t-extension-fields

Feedback on the proposal is welcome.

------------------------------
Mark Davis <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
**
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

New extension for transformed languages

CE Whitehead — 2012-03-08T04:18:07


    Hi, once more.

Doug Ewell 
    doug at ewellic.org
       

    Wed Mar  7 16:57:14 CET 2012
    
      



Agreed. But I met a second mechanism -- in addition to the m0 mechanism now available for use with the 't' extension).
This is what I was referring to, that you believe that what exactly the translator decided may not be taggable in more detail.
Glad to hear this.  Thanks.  Just to see a tag that it's a translation from language A to language B to me seems nice. (Though as noted translations vary; some are quite literal, word by word; some not; I guess this is what some have questioned but I think identifying both kinds of texts as translations is fine.

Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 


       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

New extension for transformed languages

CE Whitehead — 2012-03-06T00:12:42







Hi.

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Mon Mar 5 03:05:10 CET 2012






And the following (from the RFC) suggests that the -t extension is also for altered pronunciations (quite a can of worms, but o.k. by me because I think it's doable; much but not all of accents are systematic; but things like an overbite's effect on an accent can't always be guessed in advance; and perhaps some speakers have peculiar influences on their accent other than that of their native language -- for example myself, even in the U.S. as a kid no one could figure out where I came from, so they tried to put me in speech classes in grade school but could not figure out which dialect I spoke):

"For example, this extension could be
   used to designate a request for a speech recognizer that is tailored

   specifically for second-language speakers who are first-language
   speakers of a particular language (e.g., a recognizer for "English
   spoken with a Chinese accent")."


Then I suppose Doug does not feel it would not be wise to register a mechanism for a translation (I am unsure myself as to whether it would be wise, though, because, for example, some people translating poetry ignore the rhythm and carefully translate the words and then make the word order come out in the new language; other translations are just word-by-word without being rearranged; and then some translations take a great deal of liberty, perhaps trying to convey sentence rhythms, or the author's "voice").

Otherwise I have to agree with Doug: I don't think you tag the thought 
process but you can indicate the from- and to-language at least.



However
 yes, there are many decisions made in terms of what tone in the target 
language best captures the author's tone in the original language, and 
more.



(It might have been nice though if the m0 subtag could have first 
specified the general, whether the mechanism was for a transcription, a 
transliteration, or a translation; I'm not sure what  [ungegn] is 
however; the various country names are translations from one language to
 another while the various city names are transliterations I think. So 
someone feel free to explain this to me.)


http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell  

* * *

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Mar 5 19:23:25 CET 2012





To me it means a translation because we have two different languages here; for this tag to indicate a transliteration I would expect the language to remain the same in both instances and the script change; thus the subtag:

it-Cyrl-t-it

I assume would indicate a transcription into Cyrillic script of Dante with no particular phonetic alphabet variant mentioned.  Is this correct?

(I'm not sure here if there would in this case be any reason to insert the script [Latn] after Italian?
But at least it would be necessary to specify [Cyrl] for the script the Italian had been transcribed into, since [Cyrl] is not the suppress-script for Italian.

In any case the RFC suggests that for a transliteration und- would be used for both languages:
 "Where only the script is relevant (such as identifying a script-
   script transliteration), then 'und' is used for the primary language
   subtag." 

Thus the correct subtag for a transliteration not a transcription in this case would apparently be und-Cyrl-t-und-Latn -- if I understand the draft correctly,
that [und] is used for the language in transliterations because it's irrelevant to the letter-by-letter approach:
http://www.sttmedia.com/transcription

However, for a phonetic transcription I suppose the variant subtags [fonipa] or [fonupa] would indicate the most likely standard used in a transcription
so I don't know if it's a transcription or not.)

Hope I've got this right.

Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com 


Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/






       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

[ietf-languages-announcements] Updates to the Language Subtagregistries

CE Whitehead — 2012-02-29T16:51:16

Hi.

Doug Ewell 
    doug at ewellic.org


Thanks to Doug and Stephane for taking care of this until it was fixed. Also to Akira.

Sincerely,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com  
       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Update: language-subtag-registry still broken

Doug Ewell — 2012-02-28T05:40:52


IANA "corrected" this by transcoding the entire Registry—not just the
new entries—from MacRoman to UTF-8, so that previously valid fields
like:

Description: Norwegian Bokmål

where the 'm' is followed by U+00E5 (C3, A5 in UTF-8), have been turned
into:

Description: Norwegian Bokm√•l

where the UTF-8 sequence (C3, A5) was interpreted as MacRoman (U+221A,
U+2022) and converted to (E2, 88, 9A, E2, 80, A2).

*Every* non-ASCII sequence in the Registry has been corrupted in this
way, except the Description fields for the 'nulik' and 'rigik' records,
which were originally encoded in MacRoman and are now fine.

The Registry has been like this for over a week now, and we have been
unable to contact IANA to get it corrected. Until this problem is
resolved, I've posted a corrected version at
http://ewellic.org/language-subtag-registry.txt . Please be aware that
this is not the official Registry, and I'll be taking it down as soon as
IANA makes the necessary corrections.


--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell  

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Fwd: RFC 6497 on BCP 47 Extension T - Transformed Content

Martin J. Dürst — 2012-02-23T06:10:01

Congratulations!     Martin.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RFC 6497 on BCP 47 Extension T - Transformed Content
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
From: rfc-editor< at >rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-announce< at >ietf.org, rfc-dist< at >rfc-editor.org
CC: rfc-editor< at >rfc-editor.org

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

         RFC 6497

         Title:      BCP 47 Extension T -
                     Transformed Content
         Author:     M. Davis, A. Phillips,
                     Y. Umaoka, C. Falk
         Status:     Informational
         Stream:     IETF
         Date:       February 2012
         Mailbox:    mark< at >macchiato.com,
                     addison< at >lab126.com,
                     yoshito_umaoka< at >us.ibm.com,
                     court< at >infiauto.com
         Pages:      15
         Characters: 32915
         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

         I-D Tag:    draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07.txt

         URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6497.txt

This document specifies an Extension to BCP 47 that provides subtags
for specifying the source language or script of transformed content,
including content that has been transliterated, transcribed, or
translated, or in some other way influenced by the source.  It also
provides for additional information used for identification.  This
document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
   http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
   http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html.
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor< at >rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

language-subtag-registry is broken

Akira TAGOH — 2012-02-17T06:00:15

Hi,

I'm assuming that language-subtag-registry is encoded by utf-8 though,
it's now broken because of the nulik subtag that has been added
recently.

I hope it will be corrected shortly.

Thanks,

ISO 639-3 changes

Doug Ewell — 2012-02-08T18:08:34

ISO 639-3/RA has released its 2011 series of changes. With this series,
the RA approved 142 changes encompassing roughly 200 code elements. 
Clearly the rate of change has not diminished in the years following the
initial release of 639-3.

In the coming days or weeks, I'll be sending proposed records and
registration forms to keep the Registry in step with this. As in years
past, I'll try to send them out in batches, organized by the type of
639-3 change (retirement, new language, update).

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Revised record and form for Early Modern English

Doug Ewell — 2012-01-24T20:06:59

A few very minor editorial changes: reversed Added and Prefix in the
record to match canonical order in the Registry; removed redundant
"Cambridge" in two bibliographic references; added Wikipedia link.


LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2012-02-05
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: tudor
Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
Added: 2012-02-05
Prefix: en
%%


LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Doug Ewell
2. E-mail address of requester: doug at ewellic.org
3. Record Requested:

   Type: variant
   Subtag: tudor
   Description: Early Modern English (1500-1700)
   Prefix: en

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

   Represents the variety of English spoken and written approximately
   between 1500 and 1700, both popularly and by such authors as Donne,
   Dryden, Jonson, Kyd, Marlowe, Middleton, Milton, Shakespeare,
   Spenser, and Wyatt, as well as in the Authorized King James Version
   Bible (1611).

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

   Abbott, Edwin A. "A Shakespearian grammar. An attempt to illustrate
   some of the differences between Elizabethan and modern English."
   London: Macmillan and Co. (Third Edition, 1883).

   Barber, Charles Laurence. "Early Modern English." Edinburgh
   University Press (1997). ISBN 978-07486-0835-5.

   Crystal, David. "Think on My Words: Exploring Shakespeare's
   Language." Cambridge University Press (2008). ISBN 978-0-521-70035-1
   (paperback).

   Lass, Roger, ed. "The Cambridge History of the English Language,
   Volume III." Cambridge University Press (1999). ISBN
   978-0-521-26476-1.

6. Any other relevant information:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English


--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Early Modern English

CE Whitehead — 2012-01-23T03:35:33




Hi.
Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at gmail.com 
Sun Jan 22 07:54:24 CET 2012

True.  However "earlymod" seems to be formed from English words, not from words in French or some other language, so for this reason I was not so troubled as some by its use for this variety of English.    (However, in some cases it's hard to say what languages were used to form a subtag, for example, the subtags [1959acad] or [1694acad].)
Best,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar< at >hotmail.com 
       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages