Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sun, 19 July 2009 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
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 CF9693A6BEE for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.532, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 wVdJmPFA0yCa for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout06-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDB7D3A69E7 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26144 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2009 19:07:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.224) with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2009 19:07:06 -0000
Message-ID: <8BA7C9A96AE849AE97FA9E1779A81D20@DGBP7M81>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.110.1248029268.4909.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:07:03 -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
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:07:07 -0000

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> I am rethinking the idea of having distinctions for oral and 
> written--these would not be used often I don't think.

"Often" isn't a prerequisite to registering a variant.  I don't think we 
really know how often '1606nict' and '1694acad' will be used, either.

Karen Broome did state an industry need to distinguish spoken and 
written variants.  When we have one person saying there is sometimes a 
need, another person saying there probably isn't a need, and proponents 
of ISO 639-6 saying that there may be a need to distinguish much, much 
finer variations, that tells me we probably have the right balance :-). 
It also tells me that proposals on ietf-languages to add variants 
'spoken' and 'written', while they might not be accepted, would 
certainly not be out of order.

> Likewise in English, the written form is more or less like the spoken 
> 'standard;'

Um, I don't really, like, agree with that, y'know?

--
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