Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

McDonald, Ira wrote:
> 
> draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-00.txt gives advice based on the type
> of the ISO 639-3 language code.  What possible reason is
> there to say "that's the problem of the user to research",
> when it's fundamental to the rationale behind every code
> in ISO 639-3?
> 

Upon further review, I find that I'm more of Mark's persuasion. John's 
proposal appeared, at first, to me to provide some way to distinguish 
"collective" languages and "macro-languages", but, in fact, it only 
distinguishes the former and not the latter. It then goes on to 
distinguish a number of other language characteristics (most of which 
are inherent in the language itself: users of the respective languages 
know that Middle English is "ancient" or "extinct", or that Klingon is 
constructed)

At present, it would be useful to identify which language codes are 
macro-languages, i.e. which ones can "bear" an extlang (and which ones 
cannot) and reflect that in the registry.

The information about extinct, ancient, historic, or constructedness of 
languages is "interesting", but not really necessary to the functions of 
the registry. The ILSR is not a replacement for ISO 639.

I would support John's proposal fully if and only if it distinguished 
collective and macro languages for use in the registration process.

Otherwise, as written:

    -1

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

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