Is there a Needs document? [was RE: Sample IANA language subtag registry]

Mark Davis mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Thu Jul 15 02:45:44 CEST 2004


A summary is in the document itself
http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-phillips-langtags-04.html#changes. If
you have questions on the importance of any particular item, or feel that
there are features in the document that do not correspond to something in
that section, please let us know.

Please also see http://www.macchiato.com/misc/3066bis.html.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Clews" <scripts20 at uk2.net>
To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 01:17
Subject: Is there a Needs document? [was RE: Sample IANA language subtag
registry]


> Like Peter (quoted below) I too am also concerned about the current
> developments in RFC 3066bis.
>
> Could somebody point me towards a needs document which indicates why this
> needs to be done now, and which urgent needs RFC 3066 and the registration
> process does not permit itself now?
>
> Thanks in advance for any needs information that you can point me towards.
>
> John Clews
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: RE: Sample IANA language subtag registry
> From:    "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> Date:    Mon, July 12, 2004 3:37 pm
> To:      ietf-languages at iana.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>
>
> > The reviewer's workload would not change much, I believe, once we had
> the
> > initial list set up
>
> And after ISO 639-3 is published and we want to incorporate that?
>
>
> I will repeat that I am very concerned with this process. You guys
> published an initial draft, which I guess could have been seen as the plan
> of action -- i.e., "in this revision of RFC 3066, the issues that we aim
> to deal with are reflected in this draft". But the scope of changes is
> shifting when the thing should be stabilizing, and the design change was
> made without any advance warning or discussion. And
> discussion *is* needed.
>
> For instance, as I pointed out earlier, draft 4 leaves things very unclear
> as to which sources can be referenced: the code table provided as a TXT,
> or the source standards themselves.
>
> Also, the change is being made to address instability issues, but these
> are almost entirely limited to ISO 3166. If we are going to change the
> reference to ISO 639 from direct to indirect, then there are other issues
> that should have been considered. For instance, there's the concern of an
> ISO 639-1 ID being added where one previously existed in ISO 639-2 -- that
> could easily be resolved for good, but is not. Also, we could be asking
> whether some of the IDs in ISO 639-2 are best not used in this context,
> e.g. the IDs collections of languages (it is *not* useful to declare of
> content that it is in "South American Indian
> (Other)").
>
> Then there's the question I raised above: is the language tag reviewer
> prepared to scale up processes when the day comes that we add reference to
> ISO 639-3? The change in the draft appears to have been made without any
> consultation with the language tag reviewer. That should not have
> happened.
>
>
>
> Peter Constable
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list