Duplicate Busters: Survey #1

[Doug Ewell]

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> Apparently your proposals with one minor change and
> one omission will make it to the source, that's IMO
> better than slight differences.

I agree.

> For 'bxx' and future similar cases we might need a
> way to indicate "dupes" directly in the description.

The last we heard from ISO 639-3 (July 31) was that they had agreed to 
add annotations to the two Bornas.  Doing so would solve our problem 
while causing little or no problem for 639-3 or its other users.

> You didn't like my "foobar (*)" proposal to indicate
> that this is not the primary "foobar" entry for the
> relevant record type.  How about using "(foobar)" ?

I didn't agree with the premise that BCP 47 or the Registry should 
indicate a "primary" Description field at all.

--
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