Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)

"Doug Ewell" <> Wed, 15 July 2009 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BE53A6996 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.236
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Os0JpEBNlgLC for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id D90783A6881 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7157 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2009 02:24:12 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by ( with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2009 02:24:11 -0000
Message-ID: <9998597D06284EEC836787FD5DF74732@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <>
To: LTRU Working Group <>
References: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81> <1d5f01ca04a2$c495dfd0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:24:10 -0600
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 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:25:37 -0000

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

>> So far we haven't seen any proposal that accomplishes all three 
>> goals.
> I think we pretty much worked this out a few years ago... See 
> But as I said in my previous message, I am not quite ready yet as it 
> will involve some flagging of the data.

I think there are still some basic concepts to be worked out since that 
post 2½ years ago.  For example, John Cowan has since suggested using 
5-character variant subtags starting with "6" to hold ISO 639-6 code 
elements, instead of using the 4-letter language subtags reserved for 
(shhhh) this purpose.  That wasn't mentioned in the November 2006 post, 
but it's something we would have to decide upon.

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> replied:

> I'd really like to know the what language tagging problem would be 
> fixed by digging into 639-6, what the payoff (in terms of users served 
> or content tagged) would be, and why a working group would be 
> necessary to cope with it.

Well, that's exactly what I said before: we need to know.  We don't need 
to recharter the WG to find out these facts if we can have the 
discussion now.  Of course, having the text of the standard and the data 
available would help immensely, but that's not available now, so we're 
left to do some guessing and projecting.

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ