Re: [Ltru] action item: "other" collections in 639

That'd be great. Thanks, Peter.

On Nov 28, 2007 3:57 PM, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  In our teleconf, I took an action to push the ISO 639 JAC for action on
> getting rid of "other" collections.
>
>
>
> Last status was that I raised the issue within the JAC back in April.
> There was a bit of discussion, but I had also raised the "mis" issue at the
> same time, and that got all the attention. There were just a couple of
> comments wrt "other": someone from LOC mentioned that "other" was still
> meaningful for those using 639-2 and not 639-3 (implying a desire not to
> change). I suggested that that was an issue to be handled by applications of
> a 639 standard. Another member replied that, in the context of 639 as a
> whole, there can be applications using different subsets, and so "other"
> would need to be defined in the context of the particular subset.
>
>
>
> Also relevant here is that the code table in ISO/FDIS 639-5 does not
> include "other" in **any** of the entries (which are a superset of the
> collections in 639-2). That itself suggests to me that getting rid of
> "other" is very likely to happen and that it's just a matter of how long it
> takes for that to get reflected in data tables provided by either LOC or
> SIL.
>
>
>
> At any rate, I have restarted discussion on this within the JAC and will
> try to push for quick action.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Microsoft has an open Program Management position working on international
> text and fonts. For details, go to:
>
>
> http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobID=69CF50EA-5FB5-47C8-9083-FCE0EF9CF547
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>

-- 
Mark