Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

[Sebastian Drude <[e-mail]>]

Dear Doug, Mark, all,

ISO 21636 just provides a framework, not yet any implementation, and 
hence also not any planning, as of yet, for a concrete registry for a 
list.  I agree that this list should be open and fulfil all the criteria 
of section 2.2.6.

I am here participating in this group exactly to touch base and see how 
we can implement this in a way that it is usable and compatible with BCP 
47, BEFORE a list is created which may not be compatible in some way to 
IETF/Languages' approach.
I believe that it is in the interest of ISO to be compatible with BCP 
47, but I also believe that it should be in the interest of 
IETF/Languages to recognize the new ISO framework for dealing with 
linguistic variation, and if it is seen as a valid contribution, to 
collaborate in implementing it to the benefit of everybody.

Best,

Sebastian

-- 

Museu P.E. Goeldi, CCH, Linguistica ▪ Av. Perimetral, 1901
Terra Firme, CEP: 66077-530 ▪ Belém do Pará – PA ▪ Brazil
[e-mail] ▪ [phone] ▪ [phone]
Priv: Tv. Juvenal Cordeiro, 184, Apt 104 ▪ 66070-300 Belém

On 25/11/2020 16:29, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Mark Davis wrote:
>
>> I'd like to emphasize that the list must be freely available (not
>> behind the common ISO paywall), versioned, and stable (in the sense
>> that new items can be added, and existing items can be deprecated, but
>> nothing can be removed). That is, similar to what we see in
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry
>> and in https://iso639-3.sil.org/code_tables/download_tables for ISO
>> 639-3.
> Yes, these attributes are critically important. We must never go back to
> the days when official code lists used for language tagging violated
> them. That's why I included the reference to Section 2.2.6, which makes
> all of these points. It's essential that the 21636 contributors read and
> understand it.
>
> However, in order for there to be a freely available, versioned, stable
> list, there must BE a list. That was one of my greatest concerns about
> the work item as originally (and AFAIK still) specified: it was
> conceived expressly to be adopted into BCP 47, but no thought was
> apparently given to the administrative requirements of establishing and
> maintaining a list of valid code elements that could serve as BCP 47
> subtags. Without such a process, BCP 47 would be unusable.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>