[Ltru] Re: Punjabi

As someone who's posted off-topic to this list several times, including 
many times when ietf-languages was a more suitable target, I confess not 
knowing how this discussion affects our project to update RFC 4646 and 
4645.  All of the current and future language subtags in the Registry 
are there because they are defined in ISO 639, and they have the 
primary/extended groupings that ISO 639 gives them (except "sgn", which 
is a special case).  We don't change these.

I can think of a few broad courses of action stemming from this 
discussion, but none involves the LTRU WG:

1.  The meanings and/or macrolanguage groupings associated with Panjabi 
and/or Lahnda are not adequately representative of reality, and need to 
be changed or clarified.  This should be brought to the ISO 639-3/RA at 
iso639-3@sil.org.

2.  The subtags "pa" and/or "lah" should have comments attached to them 
that might help ensure correct usage.  This should be brought to 
ietf-languages@iana.org.

3.  Something about CLDR needs to be changed or re-examined.  This 
should be brought to the CLDR Technical Committee; see 
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/ for information.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru