[Ltru] Re: action item: "other" collections in 639

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>>> Am I correct in thinking the group will want to delay 4645bis again 
>>> for this?
>>
>> I don't see why.  It has no structural effect, and it's just a matter 
>> of 34 name changes later.
>
> I agree: there's no reason for delaying 4646bis for this, unless 
> someone thinks we need some text somewhere pertaining to collections 
> or stability that could not take effect until the change is made in 
> ISO 639-2.

I specifically referred to 4645bis, which (in draft form) contains the 
reloaded Registry, which will be expected to be fairly stable throughout 
the IETF Last Call and RFC Editor waiting periods.  I can't think why 
anyone would want to delay 4646bis for this.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, 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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru