Re: [Ltru] Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930

Proposal: RFC4645bis should preserve existing dates in the 4646-based 
registry. Then pulling the "historical" (4646) registry would be 
possible. Probably this is what you're doing already, Doug, but the text 
doesn't say so.

Addison

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
> 
>> Is there a way to pull that historical registry once ISO 639-3 is added?
> 
> In theory it's always possible to recover a historical version of the 
> RFC *4646* Registry by looking at the "Added" dates.  This actually 
> doesn't work perfectly because modifications don't affect the Added date.
> 
> Extracting the RFC *3066* registry is a different problem, because the 
> nature of the records to be extracted isn't the same.  Not only were 
> there no script subtags, but language and region subtags weren't defined 
> within the 3066 registry, but rather within ISO 639 and 3166 (so users 
> had to dig through the standards to find valid code elements, and the 
> status of "withdrawn" code elements was unclear).  The 3066 registry 
> contained only things that we would today consider for "variant" 
> status.  Going from 4646 to 3066 has more to do with understanding the 
> two specifications and registries, and the differences between them, 
> than with the actual data.
> 
> -- 
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru