[Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, macrolanguages in section 4.1

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> I'm OK with adding this as long as it does not present the impression 
>> that we are trying to second-guess, amend, or supersede anything 
>> about the macrolanguage assignments in ISO 639-3.
>
> It doesn't amend; since it doesn't change what 639-3 says, it doesn't 
> supersede. I'm not sure what would constitute second-guessing other 
> than imposing an interpretation beyond what 639-3 provides, and I 
> don't think it does that.  It's simply a commentary on those 
> particular languages and, in particular, on the usage of the 
> corresponding tag, namely,
>
>> the macrolanguage tag has been historically used to denote a dominant 
>> encompassed language,

If you're fairly sure that a list that says "here are the subtags 
derived from 639-3 that you should use when you have a choice, and here 
are the ones you shouldn't, and it's all based on the judgment of LTRU 
and not ISO 639-3/RA" won't give newcomers the impression that we are 
trying to second-guess, amend, or supersede, then I won't worry about 
it.

--
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