Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry
"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Mon, 29 June 2009 02:48 UTC
Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC4639E1F5 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:48:55 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-4IOXw6nWYs for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:48:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.8
Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [208.77.188.37]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EB1F39E1DD for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:48:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.88]) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id n5T2mToV032645 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:49 -0700
Received: (qmail 16973 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2009 02:48:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.88) with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2009 02:48:25 -0000
Message-ID: <BC92A2178C184B348018BFDE7F696880@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:48:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (pechora2.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.37]); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:48:55 -0000
Mark Davis <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote: > In the registry, we have 'sh' as Deprecated. Once we update to 639-3 > with the new registry and version of BCP 47, I think it will be time > to fix this, removing the "Deprecated" field from 'sh'. I'll plan on > submitting a Registration Form to that end. This was largely intentional in draft-4645bis, because the code element was deprecated in (or withdrawn from, they use both terms) ISO 639-1. Part of it may have been a side effect of overlooking the change from RFC 4646, where a Deprecated field in the Registry could never be removed, to draft-4646bis, where it can. Quoting from the ISO 639-2 change page: "This code was deprecated in 2000 because there were separate language codes for each individual language represented (Serbian, Croatian, and then Bosnian was added). It was published in a revision of ISO 639-1, but never was included in ISO 639-2. It is considered a macrolanguage (general name for a cluster of closely related individual languages) in ISO 639-3. Its deprecated status was reaffirmed by the ISO 639 JAC in 2005." The real anomaly, then, is within ISO 639, in which: part 1 includes the 2-letter code element but deprecates it, part 3 includes the 3-letter code element and does not deprecate it, and part 2 does not include the 3-letter code element at all. In draft-4646bis we are adding ISO 639-3 to the list of source standards, not necessarily replacing ISO 639-1 and -2. At least I can't find any text in draft-4646bis to the effect that -3 trumps -1 and -2 in case of conflicts. So to me, it is not clear whether this subtag should be left alone (following part 1 but not part 3) or should be un-deprecated (following part 3 but not part 1). It certainly isn't patently obvious to me that this is a bug in the draft-4645bis Registry that needs to be fixed. -- 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
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Randy Presuhn
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Phillips, Addison
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry ISO639-3
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry John Cowan
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Caoimhin O Donnaile
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Lang Gérard
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Lang Gérard
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Rebecca S Guenther
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Randy Presuhn
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Randy Presuhn
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Peter Constable
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Gerard Meijssen
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Peter Constable
- RE: Anomaly in upcoming registry Peter Constable
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Randy Presuhn
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Doug Ewell
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Gerard Meijssen
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry Randy Presuhn
- Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry John Cowan