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

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Doug wrote:

> I think there are still some basic concepts to be worked out
> since that post 2½ years ago.  For example, John Cowan has
> since suggested using 5-character variant subtags starting
> with "6" to hold ISO 639-6 code elements, instead of using
> the 4-letter language subtags reserved for
> (shhhh) this purpose.  That wasn't mentioned in the November
> 2006 post, but it's something we would have to decide upon.

Actually Peter constable suggested 5 characters some 6/7 years ago when I
first joined the list.

I really don't  have the time at present to enter into in-depth discussions
on the inclusion/benefits/problems of incorporating ISO 639-6 especially as
it would appear to be an uphill battle.  I would rather wait until the
standard is published and somebody comes along and states their need.

Best regards

Debbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 15 July 2009 03:24
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:
> Anomaly inupcomingregistry)
>
> Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
>
> >> So far we haven't seen any proposal that accomplishes all three
> >> goals.
> >
> > I think we pretty much worked this out a few years ago... See
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06482.html
> > But as I said in my previous message, I am not quite ready
> yet as it
> > will involve some flagging of the data.
>
> I think there are still some basic concepts to be worked out
> since that post 2½ years ago.  For example, John Cowan has
> since suggested using 5-character variant subtags starting
> with "6" to hold ISO 639-6 code elements, instead of using
> the 4-letter language subtags reserved for
> (shhhh) this purpose.  That wasn't mentioned in the November
> 2006 post, but it's something we would have to decide upon.
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot
> com> replied:
>
> > I'd really like to know the what language tagging problem would be
> > fixed by digging into 639-6, what the payoff (in terms of
> users served
> > or content tagged) would be, and why a working group would be
> > necessary to cope with it.
>
> Well, that's exactly what I said before: we need to know.  We
> don't need to recharter the WG to find out these facts if we
> can have the discussion now.  Of course, having the text of
> the standard and the data available would help immensely, but
> that's not available now, so we're left to do some guessing
> and projecting.
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>