RE: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)")

Hmmm... I was thinking changes to 639-2 were sync'd in 639-3.

And I keep overlooking collections (which I think are not terribly useful in language tags).

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@roadrunner.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X
> (macrolanguage)")
>
> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
>
> > At this point (i.e. 4646bis era), I see no reason why the LSR could
> > not rely solely on data provided by the 639-3 RA.
>
> Not solely, of course, since the LSR includes collective "languages"
> from 639-2 that do not exist in 639-3, but which must remain in the LSR.
>
> Other than that, though, are you saying that the names from 639-2 that
> are not in 639-3 should be removed from the LSR?  Bear in mind that the
> language names recently added to 639-2 and the LSR (Bedawiyet, Dene
> Suline, Kapampangan, etc.) are not yet in the available 639-3 download
> files.  Accepting 639-3 without also considering 639-2 would take the
> LSR back a few steps.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru