[Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ?

Peter Constable wrote:

> Is it useful to know that orq is an individual, constructed language
> and that that language is Orcish? Yes.

alpha-3 is a finite set, if any language of 30 words gets its own code
639-3 is in trouble, and the subtag registry with it.

> Again, what is the point of these questions?

Protecting the subtag registry from bogus entries while it's on a one
way street (nothing ever removed) with a known end (26*26*26).

> And explain to me how this is not a random attack on 639-3, since
> that is certainly how it appears to me.

Of course it's a random attack, I looked into the source, because John
proposed to preserve its Language-Type info, and the "C" attracted my
attention.  There are not many "C", and "orq" is one, and as it happens
I thought (yesterday) I know what "orq" is about.  And today I'm sure.

I can't judge anything else, e.g. why "bet" offers Béte and "bev" Bété,
it could be a typo, it could as well be completely unrelated languages.

The source for the draft is Latin-1 (another detail I didn't know, and
I checked that it's really Latin-1 and not windows-1252).  In some
cases like "aue" =/Kx'au//'ein or "gnk" //Gana I'm not sure if that's
as it should be, it appears to be odd.  Or maybe "//" has a well-known
meaning, and I just don't know what it is.

> we can revise 2.2.1 to say whatever we think is needed.

What the quoted promise already says just adding ISO 639-3 would do it.

Frank

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