IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Tue, 10 October 2006 19:19 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXN8a-0006II-9T; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:19:36 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXN8X-0006EK-Bh for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:19:33 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXN40-0002ZZ-BW for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:14:53 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GXN3W-0006xK-LO for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:14:23 +0200
Received: from d252018.dialin.hansenet.de ([80.171.252.18]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:14:22 +0200
Received: from nobody by d252018.dialin.hansenet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:14:22 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:13:05 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <452BF0C1.731E@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <452B995B.92F@xyzzy.claranet.de><F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0B1B1999@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <452BCBE9.56D0@xyzzy.claranet.de> <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0B1B1A82@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d252018.dialin.hansenet.de
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc:
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email