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

We had a long discussion on this very topic. We don't need a separate code
-- we already have Zxxx for unwritten content.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis

          (The tag "uz-Zxxx"
          could also be used where content is not written, as the subtag
          'Zxxx' represents the "Code for unwritten documents".)

The only thing we might conceivably need is "this is written, but I don't
know which script it is", and Zyyy fits the bill well for that.

Mark

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:07, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:

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