Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

[Peter Constable]

> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:36 PM


> If this situation is duly reported to the ietf-languages list -- that
> code element Y is being split off from existing code element X, and
> that
> X is therefore implicitly narrowed in scope

I'd like to comment on the perception of a split: In as much as, before coding [lyg], Lingngam did not have any independent code element and so would seem to have been most closely represented by [kha], I initially perceived the request as a split and argued against a narrowing of [kha]. (The text of ISO 639-3 does not sanction changes that narrow scope of existing categories.) However, Joan made a (to me) convincing case that it was not cost effective for us to treat this case this was. She differentiated between a "chipping off" -- that is, something that might look like a split/narrowing -- from a true split/narrowing, a key factor in the former being that there is no reason to assume that the existing category has actually been used assuming that it encompassed the "chipped-off" variety being proposed for separate encoding. The JAC agreed that, in such cases, it is much more cost effective to proceed on that basis, making a single change to add the new category, than to assume it was encompassed in the existing category, which would require us to create *two* new entries and either deprecate the existing one or reset its scope as either macrolanguage or collection.

So, the JAC position is that this is not, in fact, to be considered a split, even though that is how change request 2007-064 characterizes it. (Note that the two requested changes that *would* have made it a split -- parts 1 and 3 -- were rejected; only part 2, the addition of [lyg] was adopted.)


I wouldn't have a problem with a comment on [kha] indicating that it doesn't include Lyngngam, but I don't particularly see that as needed. And I certainly wouldn't expect the LST Reviewer or his assisting administrators to independently determine cases in which such a comment might be added.



Peter