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

SIL certainly has projects involving way more than 2-300. For them, 2000 is not unrealistic.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:01 AM
To: 'Randy Presuhn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

Well for starters, there are separate codes for Catalan and Valencian :-)

And, I rather like the way ISO 639-6 deals with variants of Chinese.

Perhaps you would like to tell me how many of the 7000+ codes of ISO 639-3
will be used.  My guess is approximately 2-300 at present but over time more
and more.  The answer is the same for ISO 639-6.

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.

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 14 July 2009 18:38
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:
> Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
>
> Hi -
>
> > From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
> > To: "'Doug Ewell'" <doug@ewellic.org>; "'LTRU Working Group'"
> > <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Cc: <L.Gillam@surrey.ac.uk>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly
> > inupcomingregistry)
> ...
> > I think we pretty much worked this out a few years ago... See
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06482.html
> > But as I said in my previous message, I am not quite ready
> yet as it
> > will involve some flagging of the data.
> ...
>
> As a technical contributor...
>
> How much content (as a percentage of internet traffic, or as
> a percentage of on-line library holdings, for example) would
> be covered by 639-6 (when it's done) that would not (or could
> not) be covered by the registry updates recently approved and
> the normal operation of ietf-languages@iana.org?
> What languages does it cover that cannot be addressed under
> the current regime?
>
> 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.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>

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