Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se> Wed, 15 July 2009 13:29 UTC
Return-Path: <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
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 919733A6ABC for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 h-C6c7YD76sf for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D086D3A6993 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c83-248-191-93.bredband.comhem.se ([83.248.191.93]:34084 helo=[192.168.1.2]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>) id 1MR4X4-00076Q-4U; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:28:28 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:27:50 +0200
From: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C683A5F6.F25A%kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
Thread-Index: AcoExZndZwd0A4NlQZKsK0un4iE/ggAUx4RwAA3VKU4=
In-Reply-To: <1dcc01ca0519$f2bbb6b0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 83.248.191.93
X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1MR4X4-00076Q-4U.
X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1MR4X4-00076Q-4U 23b581b330dca20333f0a7ffbdf1b198
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 13:29:45 -0000
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] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anom… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering (to handle 639-6 or other… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Gerard Meijssen
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Broome, Karen
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Broome, Karen
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (wasFW:An… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Debbie Garside
- [Ltru] Rechartering (in general) Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Mark Davis ⌛
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … CE Whitehead
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Broome, Karen
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: … Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:A… Broome, Karen