Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Tue, 14 July 2009 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=144618e121=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 45D873A699C for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.916, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 BFqLzRc70iqM for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C703A6822 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:02:59 -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 md50009627843.msg for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:11:39 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:11:39 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=144618e121=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
Received: from Vickynew ([213.208.115.6]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:51:34 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB579874@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <000801ca03e0$6a22bea0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <3e0701ca0471$2cbf4ab0$0300a8c0@Vickynew>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <000801ca03e0$6a22bea0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
thread-index: AcoD4bQ+D/G5PZFDQCmTpi1sjgPW9AAi4njw
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:11:39 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:40:58 -0000

Whilst I can see that the process for including ISO 639-3 and updating
RFC4646 has been long and arduous and people are pretty tired, I believe
there will be a need for inclusion of ISO 639-6 data at some point in the
future - particularly when end users request a language tag on
IETF-Languages that is facilitated within the ISO 639-6 code once published.
This begs the question, who is ultimately going to make the decision to
ignore an ISO 639 standard?

The ISO 639-6 data is hierarchical in nature, goes to a level of granularity
that will facilitate virtually any requirement and also differentiates
between written and spoken language variations - something that will be
extremely useful for metadata registries within archive industries as well
as tagging for the visually impaired, deaf and hard of hearing.

That said, I don't believe now is the correct time to re-charter for the
purposes of including ISO 639-6 data. I don't think I am ready for this - I
may be in 6-12 months. 

I do, however, think it would be a good idea to keep this list open for
general discussions and if this proves the case I will inform the list as
and when I consider ISO 639-6 data sufficiently ready for incorporation.
Whether you decide to re-charter at that point (or at any other time) is up
to you.

Best regards

Debbie Garside
Editor ISO FDIS 639-6

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Presuhn
Sent: 13 July 2009 18:36
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

I, too, oppose re-chartering ltru at this time.
The additions made by the documents recently approved
take us well past the point of diminishing returns
in terms of language coverage.

What that might convince me that re-chartering was needed
would be the appearance large quantities of data in large
numbers of languages in use by substantial speech communities
not covered by the recent updates, and not adequately handled
by the registration procedures.  I don't think that's going to
happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

Randy  

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



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16
 

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16