1) The document draft-alvestrand-language-tag-00.txt has met (as far
as I have seen) no opposition, and very little comment
My concern is that future ISO 639 may use the same extension syntax
as your draft to represent differenet sub-languages.
Then, language tag such as "en-us" may have different meaning between
IANA registry and ISO registry.
The simplest way to avoid it is, quite ironically, to go back to your
original proposal to use a character "_", which is unsafe to ISO's
eye, instead of "-".
I see a need for the document draft-alvestrand-language-tag-00.txt to be
published as a Proposed Standard of the IETF.
Is there any opposition to this?
But if you are so sure that future 639 won't use two letter codes,