Anomaly in upcoming registry

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Cherry picking standards seems to me a way that will confuse people. When a
work like this depends on standards, you make it impossible for people to
understand how and why this is true. It would also allow people to make
their own choices. They can do so because by removing the standard from the
standard, this work is either a standard in its own right and consequently
it deserves no more credibility then that it gives to other standards it
says it relies on.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/7/9 Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>

> In this case I agree with the conclusion -- we don't want to collapse
> these.
>
> On the other hand, I'm not completely in agreement with your premise that
> this is solely ISO 639's call and that we have no say. We could choose to
> collapse these even if ISO 639 doesn't if we think that is the right thing
> to do for consumers of the LST registry. If ISO 639 chose to collapse these,
> we could choose to leave them as is if we think that is the right thing to
> do for consumers of the LST registry.
>
> There are times when we simply want to follow what ISO does and not "second
> guess"; there are also times when we don't want to be subject to everything
> ISO may do -- such provisions are even baked into BCP 47.
>
> IMO, if we think that sh not be deprecated for consumers of the LST
> registry, then we should go ahead and make that decision, regardless of
> whatever ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-3 may do.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:
> ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:52 PM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>
> > Where I *don't* want this discussion to go is down the path of whether
> > any of the languages formerly known as Serbo-Croatian should be
> > collapsed, as Romanian and Moldovan (rightly) were.
>
> Agreed.  It's not our call, it's ISO 639's call.
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090712/ef85ee6a/attachment.htm