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

["Doug Ewell" <[e-mail]>]

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