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