Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
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 8F8473A6B43 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 gEszip3G9QW1 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1063A6AB4 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so805238fga.18 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Lio2eVoZwTPuH1sEbmlwuHtw2hkqyysSZR3DuAoNwq0=; b=IT7j38SyIhcofVAR2EyQy7JBcJn1mBi9qpPQpvDrFw452u86vD//+wtMgIv5xzOe1h a3DRqRQ/ysbTXvtDwgcwgtuitdh5anURd7ePU8YQEy4TZ1Gs/gqiKjioGGBm98I/5Zli /qSjBJ7jbiDvOruQyRzb4SRPQuXOD1Jrl7TFs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=xzInxjJaYDmJJ3X6Q0j4miBL++NEKlPWKuagv0NZRtbqyUshVkIcmrQsdDCaCQZBbS /vLxtdzuCRSUCq8HmNi2v+uLW++z47W+M7TgtxcWqn7uu2vZLVfFQn9zGscBuRcOSebz UWeBlowrqHAdDa3MixvQaamoZ2tqEEpUomcvw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.86.84.16 with SMTP id h16mr5103074fgb.36.1247665666064; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C683A5F6.F25A%kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
References: <1dcc01ca0519$f2bbb6b0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <C683A5F6.F25A%kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:47:26 +0200
Message-ID: <41a006820907150647i1d1b7a8avb79e9fbd1af9c432@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd289c2d30432046ebecc6c"
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:19:21 -0000

Hoi,
The "best practice" is limited to a subset what these codes can be used for.
Imho defending a practice that will never inherently provide a systematic or
comprehensive approach is hard when a replacement with a more systematic and
comprehensive approach becomes available.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/7/15 Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>

>
> Den 2009-07-15 09.00, skrev "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>:
>
> > Well for starters, there are separate codes for Catalan and Valencian :-)
>
> So does BCP 47 (well, nearly):
>    ca
>    ca-valencia
>
> There is nothing in principle hindering a registration of a variant subtag
> specifically for "true" Catalan (no value judgement implied).
>
> > And, I rather like the way ISO 639-6 deals with variants of Chinese.
>
> 639-3 also deals with "variants" of Chinese (separate languages, really).
> How does 639-6 do it differently (apart from using 4-letter codes instead
> of
> 3-letter codes)?
>
> > Perhaps you would like to tell me how many of the 7000+ codes of ISO
> 639-3
> > will be used.  My guess is approximately 2-300 at present but over time
> more
> > and more.  The answer is the same for ISO 639-6.
> >
> > Essentially, all the reasons for including ISO 639-6 are the same as for
> > including ISO 639-3.  Unless of course, you think that ISO 639-3 is
> perfect
> > and defines all languages distinctly and that anything else cannot, is
> not,
> > and definitely is not a language.  Then of course you have to decide that
> > BCP 47 will only deal with languages and not dialects.
>
> BCP 47 does deal with dialects, using variant subtags. However, it is very
> very far from systematic or comprehensive. It requires individual
> registration of each variant. I would venture to guess that that process
> will never result in a systematic or (in some sense) comprehensive set
> of variant subtags for dialects. On the other hand, the call for tagging
> dialects separately, currently seems fairly small amongst the consumers of
> BCP 47, IMHO.
>
>    /kent k
>
> > Then, and only then,
> > may you exclude ISO 639-6.
> >
> >
> > Debbie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>