Duplicate Busters: Survey #2
Frank Ellermann
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Fri Aug 1 17:27:45 CEST 2008
Doug Ewell wrote:
[set 1]
> The goal is to pick one and discard the other.
For ASCII vs. non-ASCII "spelling" differences I'd
doubt that this is a good goal.
[set 2]
> the description without comment is the ISO 639-1
> and/or -2 name.
IOW the "relevant" name for all Internet protocols,
Web standards, etc. using RFC 1766, 3066, or 4646
tags. A quite significant number of existing tags.
> Type: language
> Subtag: ms
> Description: Malay (macrolanguage)
> Description: Malay
If the 4646bis proponents invent some kind of scope
field indicating "macrolanguage" the longer name is
not strictly necessary.
If they'd invent a flag (*) they could even indicate
that this is not the main entry for Malay IFF there
will be a new "individual" Malay dupe.
I prefer the shorter description, assuming that the
"macrolanguage" info is preserved elsewhere in the
hypothetical registry.
> Type: language
> Subtag: ain
> Description: Ainu (Japan)
> Description: Ainu
Here the longer description is better. It might be
good to preserve the currently relevant name somehow,
how about a Comment ? I skip similar cases.
> Type: language
> Subtag: rup
> Description: Macedo Romanian
> Description: Macedo-Romanian
That is stupid. Pick the currently registered name,
or convince ISO 638 to toss a coin. Note what you
have done manually in 4645bis.
> Type: script
> Subtag: Ethi
> Description: Geʻez
> Description: Ge'ez
Keep both as you found them in the sources.
> Type: script
> Subtag: Hang
> Description: Hangul
> Description: Hangŭl
> Description: Hangeul
> Technically I should not be including Hangeul, which is
> a different transcription of the same Korean word, not
> a genuinely different name. Make your own judgment.
Keep all as you found them in the sources.
Frank
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list