Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

Incidentally, this same question applies to cases like the following:

Type: language
Subtag: ain
Description: Ainu (Japan)
Description: Ainu
Added: 2005-10-16

where:

"Ainu" is the name used in ISO 639-2

"Ainu (Japan)" is the name used in ISO 639-3, because there is also an 
"Ainu (China)" that wasn't coded in 639-2

Does it make sense to include both descriptions?  Doing so might confuse 
people looking for the Chinese Ainu, who find "Ainu = ain" (in a user 
interface, not looking directly at the LSR) and don't realize there is 
also a Japanese Ainu and they've hit it by mistake.  Excluding "Ainu 
(Japan)" would guarantee that this would happen.  But excluding plain 
"Ainu" would once again be unacceptable to people who want all ISO 639-1 
and -2 names (except inversions, now) retained in the LSR.  Which is the 
least problematic course of action?

--
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