[Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

Peter Constable wrote:

> One can read all my thoughts on this that have been published
> elsewhere (see http://www.sil.org/silewp/2000/001/).

That doesn't explain "orq".  And the ethnologue site claims that
"orq" is no SIL code.  So how did it get added to a 639-3 draft ?

There must be some procedure, and if that procedure is broken it
needs to be fixed before nonsense is added to a registry designed
for stability.  There's no way to get rid of "orq" later, at best
it could be deprecated.

Of course one "orq" is harmless and not worse than say "tlh", but
if that's only the tip of an iceberg spammers and criminals will
abuse it as fast as 1-2-3 to create their virtual "Cesidian root"
or "Dominion of Melchizedek" realities.

We can't have IANA servers confiscated in criminal investigations
about DOM.  

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru