[Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)")
"Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com> Sat, 08 December 2007 22:59 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18dr-0002m1-9H; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:59:27 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J18dq-0002lw-Jm for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:59:26 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18dq-0002lj-98 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:59:26 -0500
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J18dp-00056g-VZ for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:59:26 -0500
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([76.167.184.182]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20071208225924.JDUV4022.mta11.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:59:24 -0500
Message-ID: <008701c839ed$fa2cede0$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1J18JG-0000Aw-CJ@megatron.ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:59:24 -0800
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 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)")
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 <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: > At this point (i.e. 4646bis era), I see no reason why the LSR could > not rely solely on data provided by the 639-3 RA. Not solely, of course, since the LSR includes collective "languages" from 639-2 that do not exist in 639-3, but which must remain in the LSR. Other than that, though, are you saying that the names from 639-2 that are not in 639-3 should be removed from the LSR? Bear in mind that the language names recently added to 639-2 and the LSR (Bedawiyet, Dene Suline, Kapampangan, etc.) are not yet in the available 639-3 download files. Accepting 639-3 without also considering 639-2 would take the LSR back a few steps. -- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell 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
- [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X… Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs… Peter Constable