RE: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: include new"Language-Type:" field)

ISO 639-3 is very clear about which items are macrolanguages: it is clear both from the normative scope attribute and from the macrolanguage mapping table.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:38 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: include new"Language-Type:" field)

Peter Constable wrote:
> 
> I'm not saying I think the type info is needed; 
 > I am inclined to think it would be good to include
 > the scope values, though. And as for the source not
 > identifying collections, actually it does: every
 > alpha-3 in 639-2 that is not in 639-3 is a collection.
> 

The LSR doesn't indicate which alpha3 codes are ISO 639-2 vs. ISO 639-3, 
so collections won't be clear in the registry unless we label them 
somehow, which this proposal does provide. On the other hand, 
"collection" codes are just language subtags that someone may choose or not.

I was hoping that 639-3 would provide the information on what is or is 
not considered a macro-language. But this information isn't it.

I'm against replicating information just to replicate it. It would be 
simpler and more efficient to provide a link to ISO 639-3 and point out 
that there is more information there. Oh. Wait. We already do that. ;-)

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.