[Ltru] 'car' in different ISO 639 parts

[Peter Constable]

No, not really: it applies to ISO 639-2, and there is no change to ISO 639-2 that has been requested or proposed.

Obviously the JAC should be motivated to get this resolved as quickly as possible.



Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: [Ltru] 'car' in different ISO 639 parts
>
>
>
>
> Hi, would the following clause require JAC to expedite its decision as
> to whether car refers to a single language or not??
> According to:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/annexa.html
>
>
> "A.3.3 Additions and deletions to the list of entities, changes of
> codes
> Requests for additions, deletions, and changes of codes shall be
> supported by a justification. When ISO 639-2/RA consults ISO 639/RA-JAC
> about the proposed inclusion, deletion or change, and suggests a code,
> ISO 639/RA-JAC is obliged to respond within one month. Simultaneously
> ISO 639-1/RA will be informed and asked for comments."
>
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com
>
> Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com
> Mon Jun 9 19:47:09 CEST 2008
>
> > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
>
> >>> This is an inconsistency in ISO 639 that the JAC should resolve:
> 639-
> >>> 5
> >>> is giving a very different denotation from -2/-3 -- a collection
> >>> scope
> >>> versus individual-language scope -- which is something that should
> >>> never happen.
>
> >> It would be good if the JAC could expedite this.
>
> > I have raised the issue.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages