Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

Kent Karlsson scripsit:

> In addition I would prefer to have "Deprecated: ..." for those of type
> "Collection", on the grounds that they are "Collection"s, and indeed
> the "(Other)" portion in many (most) of them does not make sense in
> relation to 639-3.

I thought about deprecating them, but if they are to be deprecated,
it is in a sense quite different from the deprecation of 'CS' or 'he'.
It's not that they are obsolete or nonsensical, but that they are vague.

However, sometimes vagueness can't be avoided.  The 639-2 codes came
out of library practice, and sometimes the only thing you know about a
document is that it's in some North American Indian language or other --
your records aren't complete.

On the whole, then, I would rather label them as collections directly,
and then say that using collection subtags is discouraged unless no
better information is available.

As for "(Other)", I hope to see its demise; it only makes sense on the
assumption that 639-2 is a closed collection, which it has not been
up to now.

-- 
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Rather than making ill-conceived suggestions for improvement based on
uninformed guesses about established conventions in a field of study with
which familiarity is limited, it is sometimes better to stick to merely
observing the usage and listening to the explanations offered, inserting
only questions as needed to fill in gaps in understanding. --Peter Constable

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