Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry

Hello All,

I do not think that there is anything requiring correction. There are 
other instances of macrolanguages in ISO 639-3 that do not exist in Part 2 
(much less, Part 1). See [luy] and [kln]. The deprecation of [sh] in Part 
1, and the retirement of [hbs] from the predecesor of Part 2 with the 
split into three individual languages were actions taken before the notion 
of "macrolanguage" was in existence in the 639 standards group. The 
decision to include [hbs] as a macrolanguage in Part 3 was a separate 
decision, taken in 2005 and reiterated in 2007 with the adoption of ISO 
639-3.

Best regards,

Joan Spanne
ISO 639-3/RA
SIL International
7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd
Dallas, TX 75236
ISO639-3@sil.org

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> 
Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
2009-06-29 08:04 AM

To
<ietf-languages@iana.org>
cc

Subject
Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry

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

>> ... It certainly isn't patently obvious to me that this is a bug in 
>> the draft-4645bis Registry that needs to be fixed.
>
> I think no one is suggesting that anything be done to draft-4645bis. I 
> think re-opening 4645bis to make a change of this nature would be 
> inappropriate.

No, I agree that Mark was not calling to change anything in 
draft-4645bis, but rather in the "draft-4645bis Registry" -- the 
Registry to be supplied to IANA by draft-4645bis, whose method of 
construction is described in draft-4645bis.

My position is that the change Mark suggests may not be appropriate, and 
is certainly not a <span lang="en-US">slam dunk</span>.  It depends on 
our interpretation of draft-4646bis and any priorities it does or 
doesn't give to ISO 639-3 over other parts of ISO 639, and it depends on 
whether the relevant RA or JAC decides to correct the inconsistency in 
639 by either (a) reviving "sh" in 639-1 and adding "hbs" to 639-2, or 
(b) withdrawing "hbs" from 639-3.

I don't see why the philosophical discussion necessarily must wait until 
the new Registry is in force, but if others want to wait, that's fine 
with me.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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

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