RE: [Ltru] Re: action item: "other" collections in 639

Update on this: I’ve got agreement in principle from LOC to change entries of the form “Foo (Other)” to “Foo languages” in ISO 639-2. In doing this, they want to provide some info as to which individual-language entries in 639-2 are encompassed within each collection so that applications can derive “other” groups if that’s how they want to use them. So, I’m not sure just how quickly that change will appear in the code tables on the 639-2 site. (I wouldn’t expect to see a change on the 639-3 site until that has changed on the 639-2 site.)

Peter

From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:13 AM
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: action item: "other" collections in 639

Let me clarify this sub-thread: I have questioned in the past whether language collection ID of any kind are useful in IETF language tags. Whenever I made that suggestion, there were others here insisting that they wanted them kept.

I am not proposing any change in this regard at this time. This only came up because I had poorly worded my statement about getting rid of “(Other)” from language-collection names, and Doug thought I was suggesting that ISO 639 “withdraw” those entries – I was not suggesting that.

Let me clarify what change I am pursuing: I am asking the JAC to remove “(Other)” from the names of language-collection entries that currently contain that string. That is *all* this thread was intended to be about.

Peter

From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:53 AM
To: Frank Ellermann
Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: action item: "other" collections in 639

Nobody is calling for removing. Peter's action was to take "(Other)" out of the names, that's all.

Mark
On Nov 29, 2007 7:25 AM, Frank Ellermann < nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de<mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>> wrote:
Peter Constable wrote:

> I've suggested in the past that removing collection IDs from
> BCP47 might not be a bad idea, but on several occasions people
> have indicated that they wish to have the collections kept.
"Removing" can't fly.  Do you mean "not add new" (in the 4645bis
bulk update), "deprecate old", or both ?

 Frank

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

--
Mark