Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Wed, 15 July 2009 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1447403586=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3263D3A6C7B for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.817
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.817 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFqDbq22fQ14 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFEE3A6F4A for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50009635883.msg for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:11:48 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:11:48 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=1447403586=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:51:36 +0100
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: 'Peter Constable' <petercon@microsoft.com>, 'Randy Presuhn' <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81><1d5f01ca04a2$c495dfd0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><036201ca04a9$c6500ec0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <1dcc01ca0519$f2bbb6b0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956B0B299C16@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1ffd01ca0586$c4de9b00$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956B0B299E67@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:51:03 +0100
Message-ID: <204d01ca058d$f7c23cf0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AcoExZndZwd0A4NlQZKsK0un4iE/ggAUx4RwABHxWeAACL/jYAAB3KYQAACzE7A=
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956B0B299E67@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:11:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:16:12 -0000

Peter wrote:

> That might not be unreasonable. Of course, we wouldn't need a
> change in BCP 47 to effect that; it might be sufficient just
> to have a working procedure within ietf-languages that, if a
> variant registration comes along, then we always look into
> the possibility of registering the 639-6 ID, adapted as
> needed. The most important reason to revise BCP 47 would be
> to formalize requirements on how the ID should be adapted
> (e.g. requiring "6" + alpha4 -- or whatever).

Exactly! :-)

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 15 July 2009 21:40
> To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Randy Presuhn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was
> FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
>
> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk]
>
> > It is quite possible to design a structure within BCP
> > 47 for end users to be able to lookup the code within ISO 639-6 and
> > register this code within the LSR as a variant of an ISO
> 639-3/2/1/5
> > based primary language subtag.
>
> That might not be unreasonable. Of course, we wouldn't need a
> change in BCP 47 to effect that; it might be sufficient just
> to have a working procedure within ietf-languages that, if a
> variant registration comes along, then we always look into
> the possibility of registering the 639-6 ID, adapted as
> needed. The most important reason to revise BCP 47 would be
> to formalize requirements on how the ID should be adapted
> (e.g. requiring "6" + alpha4 -- or whatever).
>
>
> > As previously stated, I will come back when ISO 639-6 is
> published and
> > the data complete and we can decide then whether this WG
> should be re-chartered.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>