Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Peter wrote:

> Your qualifications notwithstanding, I disagree.

Not qualified yet! ;-)

> While the
> boundaries of languages and dialects may be debatable
> generally and in many cases, I think it is the case that
> there are a good number of cases for which there is current
> practice and convention in terms of recognizing languages,
> that this number well exceeds what was covered in 639-1/-2
> and is largely encompassed within 639-3. There will remain a
> relatively small number of cases in which
> conventionally-recognized language entities are not covered,
> and those may be covered in 639-6, but if there is
> conventional acceptance that they should be deemed languages
> then they are probably candidates for part 3;

I agree...

> it would not be
> worth supporting all of 639-6 just for this particular tail, IMO.

I agree, in part...

I really am trying not to get into deliberations about ISO 639-6 and its
inclusion within BCP47 at this present time due to other more pressing
commitments.  Nevertheless...

What I can say, and this also responds to Mark's points in relation to
fallback, is that if a structure for ISO 639-6 data was incorporated within
BCP 47 said structure does not necessarily need to take the form of a
primary language subtag nor does the full set of data need to be included
within the registry.  It is quite possible to design a structure within BCP
47 for end users to be able to lookup the code within ISO 639-6 and register
this code within the LSR as a variant of an ISO 639-3/2/1/5 based primary
language subtag.  If this route was chosen there are various ways, already
discussed, of doing this syntactically with either preceding letters or
numbers in order to differentiate between an ISO 639-6 variant subtag and a
script subtag.  (In fact doing it this way will save me having to flag the
entities for inclusion).

All this has been chewed over many years ago and with all due respect the
level of opposition to including ISO 639-6 at this present time and also the
fact that the standard is still at FDIS stage makes me unwilling to spend
much or any time discussing it further.  I, like all of you, am rather tired
of BCP 47 at this present time and think it would do us all good to let the
new BCP bed in before starting discussions anew.

As previously stated, I will come back when ISO 639-6 is published and the
data complete and we can decide then whether this WG should be re-chartered.

Best regards

Debbie






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 15 July 2009 16:34
> To: [e-mail]; 'Randy Presuhn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was
> FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Debbie Garside
>
> > Essentially, all the reasons for including ISO 639-6 are
> the same as
> > for including ISO 639-3.  Unless of course, you think that
> ISO 639-3
> > is perfect and defines all languages distinctly and that
> anything else
> > cannot, is not, and definitely is not a language.  Then of
> course you
> > have to decide that BCP 47 will only deal with languages and not
> > dialects.  Then, and only then, may you exclude ISO 639-6.
>
> Your qualifications notwithstanding, I disagree. While the
> boundaries of languages and dialects may be debatable
> generally and in many cases, I think it is the case that
> there are a good number of cases for which there is current
> practice and convention in terms of recognizing languages,
> that this number well exceeds what was covered in 639-1/-2
> and is largely encompassed within 639-3. There will remain a
> relatively small number of cases in which
> conventionally-recognized language entities are not covered,
> and those may be covered in 639-6, but if there is
> conventional acceptance that they should be deemed languages
> then they are probably candidates for part 3; it would not be
> worth supporting all of 639-6 just for this particular tail, IMO.
>
> Rather, I think if there is potential benefit from 639-6 it
> will be in relation to sub-language variations.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>