Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

[Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>]

I think adding only the 'interesting' information, in the Description
or Comment field, would be a much more unobtrusive change to
which I could agree (although still not thrilled).

Reagrds,     Martin.

At 12:50 06/10/11, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Peter Constable wrote:

>> "That's the job of a comment or description," you said. 
>> It's still not clear to me if you had a comment to make wrt
>> John's proposal or not.
>
>The "interesting" types A, C, E, H, and S (what's H ?) could
>be added to the description, e.g.
>
>Subtag: xzh
>Description: Zhang-Zhung (A)
>
>Or preserved as a comment:
>
>Subtag: xzh
>Description: Zhang-Zhung
>Comment: Ancient
>
>There are only 617 entries with "interesting" types, anything
>else is L (living).  The scopes could be handled in the same
>way, all 56 M are L, with that we would get at most one marker
>per description or comment for now:  A, C, E, H, S, or M.
>
>If later one of the Ms gets type E adding (M,E) to a description
>(or saying Macrolanguage, Extinct in a comment) is no problem.
>
>Changing the 4646 syntax adding a completely new field however
>is IMNSHO a very bad idea.  We more or less promised that that
>won't happen.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]     


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru