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

How reliable and useful in what sense? Is it reliable that orq denotes
Orcish? Modulo that the published table is a *draft* code table, yes. Is
it reliable that orq denotes an individual, constructed language? Yes.
Is it useful to know that orq is an individual, constructed language and
that that language is Orcish? Yes. Is it useful to have an entry for orq
in the first place? That depends on the user, just as it does for all
the other 7000+ entries.

Again, what is the point of these questions? (And explain to me how this
is not a random attack on 639-3, since that is certainly how it appears
to me.)

Items in 639-3 will never be deleted, nor will they be reassigned. It
has a fairly strict stability policy. If this WG feels that is
inadequate for RFC 4646bis, then we can revise 2.2.1 to say whatever we
think is needed.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:13 PM
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Peter Constable wrote:

> What point are you getting at? (I really haven't a clue.)

How reliable and useful is the info, and should the registry
contain a source indication for alpha-3 language subtags if
there are major differences between 639-2 and 639-3.  Maybe
it's possible to delete "orq" from 639-3 later, but it's not
possible to remove it from the LSR.

The guarantee in RFC 4646 2.2.1 covers only 639-2 and 639-1,
not 639-3.  If "orq" could be _reassigned_ we've dropped the
ball.  I think the statement in 2.2.1 needs to be extended
to cover ISO 639-3 like it covers 639-2 today.

For that I'd propose that we request an official statement
to be added to 4646bis (replacing the old 3066 statement).

Frank

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru