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

"Doug Ewell" <> Tue, 14 July 2009 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2490B3A6830 for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.242
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.656, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLLIjz4ag86U for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E39A3A67D9 for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31926 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2009 04:54:15 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by ( with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2009 04:54:15 -0000
Message-ID: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <>
To: LTRU Working Group <>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:54:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:20:31 -0000

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> As a technical contributor...
> (1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be 
> chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text.  Unless 
> operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously 
> broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.

Of course any "real" updating activity would entail necessary changes to 
the existing text.  I'm not talking about that when I say "tweaking." 
I'm talking about the endless lily-gilding, adding more and more caveats 
and examples for existing edge cases and inserting new sections to cover 
the most extreme corner cases, almost as if, as you put it, the BCP were 
to be implemented by automatons instead of breathing humans.

> As co-chair...
> (2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a 
> rechartering of the WG that you *would* support?

I wouldn't mind seeing supporters of ISO 639-6 put together a serious 
proposal that maintains compatibility with BCP 47 matching logic, keeps 
duplicate-tag redundancy to a minimum, AND adds value.  I'm not sure it 
can be done, and I won't support adding 639-6 if it can't be, but I 
think it deserves a chance in the marketplace of ideas.  So far we 
haven't seen any proposal that accomplishes all three goals.

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ