Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

[John Cowan]

Doug Ewell scripsit:
> Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
> 
> >>My overall feeling is that we should accept the narrowing, which is 
> >>only implicit
> >
> >Agreed.  As we follow ISO 639 this is the right decision to make IMHO.
> 
> +1
> 
> >>(it does not require actual changes to the registry entry for 'kha').
> >
> >I don't agree here.  I think, as has been done before, that 'kha' 
> >should have a comment added to say something like "as of  [date] this 
> >code does not include Lynghgam - see lyg"
> 
> I'm not completely opposed to this, but I'm concerned about the 
> precedent it sets for us (mostly Michael and me).  Basically we would 
> need to examine every new ISO 639-3 code element to determine whether it 
> represents a split of an existing code element, and create a comment on 
> the existing subtag similar to the one proposed here.  

Only if someone brings it to your attention, I think.  Comment fields
are discretionary.

> How much trouble does it cause if we get a batch 
> of 250-plus ISO 639-3 changes and one of these slips through unnoticed?

It may cause trouble, but not on our watch.  The semantics of language subtags
come from ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue, not us.

-- 
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little              John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot       cowan at ccil.org
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith          http://ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables.  --And Rosta