Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Thu, 29 May 2008 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7F33A6B81; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF32F3A6B81 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvxEEdKWD-3y for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AD93A69D1 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.46.185) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:56 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.46]) by tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.46.185]) with mapi; Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:56 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:40:54 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example
Thread-Index: AcjBT8Gyz2MQRa1aQsewbFSQtAKB4QAUXdDg
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633304E8D9@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <mailman.636.1211925384.15310.ltru@ietf.org> <004d01c8c065$838b8d50$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <008001c8c105$cc421820$64c64860$@net> <001501c8c121$646ebe80$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <483E14ED.6030100@malform.no> <002601c8c13e$60217e40$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <483E3D68.1080202@malform.no>
In-Reply-To: <483E3D68.1080202@malform.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage, Extlang. The Sami language situation as example
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Leif Halvard Silli


> In that regard: Do you think that it is possible that extlang in
> itself could be misperceived by ISO? Could the ISO think that LTRU
> *wants* them to define Macrolanguaes, which then would become
> extlang tagged - or something like that? Or, could ISO begin
> wanting to interfer with this group, or perhaps refrain from
> defining macrolanguages, picking other methods for grouping
> languages, because they don't like the extlang tagging that it
> leads to?

OK, I guess we're even now on the second-guessing business. (My apologies for coming across that way.)

The ISO 639 JAC has never once discussed extlang. The initial innovation of macrolanguages in drafts of 639-3 was influenced by RFC 3066 and existing registered language tags, as I have explained in detail enough times now, and future decisions regarding macrolanguages made by the ISO 639 JAC or TCs 37 or 46 *should* be taking into account any potential impact on BCP 47 (which currently is none, and depending on the final form of 4646bis may remain none). Neither the ISO 639 JAC or TCs 36 or 46 has every discussed the LTRU WG that I am aware of.


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