Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 and LTRU continuation [was: Geocoordinates]

["Phillips, Addison" <[e-mail]>]

> On the other hand, we could pretty well shut
> down ietf-languages@, since there would be little or nothing left to
> approve outside the 639 framework.

... assuming that there is only one way to classify languages meeting the needs of all audiences. :-)

I'm sure that some audiences will find value in 639-6 and that incorporating the 639-6 codes into BCP 47 may have some merit--just has the various changes we've wrought have value. In fact, some people have said it has merit on this list, so that's hardly speculation.

Personally, I don't see incorporating other collections as a high priority: the ones we have are more for completeness than actual utility. The other variants might be addressed by permitting "random" registration and requiring a reference field in the registry for the ISO 639-6 code that corresponds (allowing a creeping mnemonicity to develop). For that matter, if they're going to be variants anyway, an extension (-6- seems like an appropriate singleton) seems like a practical solution with some benefits to recommend it.

But I speculate recklessly. Since it seems pretty easy to create an IETF WG, I guess the real question is whether the chairs, AD, and such would want to maintain a moribund group for a year or so while this standard bakes instead of just creating a new one at the appropriate juncture. Or it 639-6 that close?

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: John Cowan; Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Geocoordinates
> 
> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
> 
> > I haven't followed ISO 639-6 since there were (premature?)
> announcements
> > of its possible demise. It might make a suitable extension (in
> which
> > case no WG is needed). Or, when it is mature, couldn't we just
> create
> > a new instance of LTRU with a new charter at that time?
> 
> I don't know if that's more or less expensive (in people time,
> mostly)
> than letting LTRU go dormant and then revivifying it.
> 
> FWIU, 639-6 codes form a Big Tree, from "all languages" at the top
> down
> through genetic groups, languages, and variants of all sorts
> (including
> script variants).  The codes for languages are harmonized with 639-
> 3's,
> so they're already in; the codes for groups are or will be
> harmonized
> with 639-5's.  So what's left is:
> 
> (a) codes for language collections that aren't in 639-5, which
> could
> be added to BCP 47 as 4-letter primary language subtags (that size
> is
> currently reserved);
> 
> (b) codes for variants other than script and national variants,
> which
> could be added to BCP 47 as 5-character variant subtags by adding a
> 5th
> character (I propose prefixing '6').
> 
> Of course the Registry would become bigger than ever, and some of
> He Who Must Not Be Named's concerns would actually become realities,
> like whether authorized mirrors would be needed to hold down on the
> number of downloads.  On the other hand, we could pretty well shut
> down
> ietf-languages@, since there would be little or nothing left to
> approve
> outside the 639 framework.
> 
> --
> Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML      John Cowan
> Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker       [e-mail]
> saying "No information items inside".
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>         --Eve Maler