Reminder: ISO 639-3 changes are coming

[Doug Ewell]

Joan Spanne <ISO639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:

> In this particular case, I communicated to the requester that this 
> request was very unlikely to successfully pass review, because (in 
> summary) it is not sufficiently established among a self-sustaining 
> user group. He asked that it undergo the review process anyway.

I agree.  It should be allowed to go through the process, and rejected 
for cause.

> the review process is working, and your objections have been noted. I 
> expect that the list participants will be glad to move on to other 
> topics. Please do comment on other requests.

Sure.  Did anyone notice the proposals to reclassify Latvian and 
Lithuanian as macrolanguages, encompassing (respectively) Standard 
Latvian plus Latgalian, and Standard Lithuanian plus Samogitian?  Did 
anyone read through the two proposals, stated to have been written by 
two different people, and notice the extreme similarity in wording of 
Section 2(b) and of points (a) and (b) in the section "Sources of 
information"?

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­