Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829181131.04e681c0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:20:54 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
From: DXlXguX GXnXral <info@afrac.org>
In-Reply-To: <020d01c5aca6$deaf34a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06EDF10E@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050829091433.058e1850@mail.jefsey.com>
	<020d01c5aca6$deaf34a0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Sorry, typo of mine.
I meant ISO 639-3. You are correct.

At 16:35 29/08/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> > From the input of Doug Ewell its _initial_ version withISO 639-6 will
> > include 40.000 lines.
>
>I never said that.  I would not make any statement about ISO 639-6 when
>the data is not available.
>
>I said that the deltas for the initial version with ISO 639-*3* would
>add up to 35,700 lines -- and yes, that would put the grand total at
>over 40,000 lines.
>
>It's hard to follow this line of argument that a registry with 7,600
>languages would be too large, and simultaneously that it should instead
>support 20,000 languages, unles the object is to do away with the
>registry altogether and have everyone invent new tags on the fly.  What
>good would such nonce tags be?

I say that a large reistry implies problem which have not been 
addressed. I have other solutions based upon another architecture. I 
have none with yours. This is why I ask.

Cheers.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru