Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo] and [bxx]
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Aug 1 04:35:32 CEST 2008
Joan Spanne <ISO639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:
> I will take action to resolve the matter for each of the four (Aruá;
> Awa; Borna; Murik) by early next week.
I'm delighted to see that the RA is willing to resolve these conflicts
within ISO 639-3, so we don't have to deviate from them. I'll hold off
on any action here until the new 639-3 files come out.
> I am inclined to accept Doug's recommendations, with the exception of
> [Aruá]. Precedent within the standard uses a state or province level
> geographic qualifier, so those would be [arx] "Aruá (Rodonia State)"
> and [aru] "Aruá (Amazonas State)". If they were geographically
> proximal to the district level, the next choice of qualifier would be
> classification based (the highest level where they are distinct).
That is perfectly fine. I wanted to stay consistent with the precedent,
but couldn't find state-level identifications in the Ethnologue pages
(though I see it now for 'arx').
--
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list