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