ISO 639-3 changes, part ? (Was ISO 639-3 changes, part 1)

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.


Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Mon Feb 1 01:00:30 CET 2010 


> Do not insert an Added field in the registration form.  It is not called 
> for in Figure 5 of RFC 5646, which is found within Section 3.5. 


Oops.  (I went too many places looking for examples and still did not get that somehow.
I had a ton of sleep last night so should not make more mistakes today hopefully.)

> You do need to have this field in the proposed record, though.

Yes, I see that.

> For subtags whose code elements are being retired from ISO 639-3, you 
> need a Deprecated field.  You will also need a Preferred-Value field 
> (note capitalization), but only if there is *exactly one* subtag that is 
> preferred. . . . 

This is know.  


> btb' is different; any one of seven other subtags might be the 
> correct choice.  A subtag cannot have more than one Preferred-Value, and 
> cannot have a so-called "multi-part" Preferred-Value; this is an 
> iron-clad rule.  In this case, the information would have to be 
> expressed as a Comments field, such as:

> Comments: see beb, bum, bxp, eto, ewo, fan, mct

Thanks for refreshing me on this. (The case of Serbo-Croatian 'sh' now comes back.)

> . . .
> But please hold off on Lushootseed for the moment.

I thought I was supposed to do all the first group of retired changes (I've already done 'lut', 'lushootseed', 
but have put in inside of  brackets for now; let me know when you want it).


> For changes like these that track the core standards, whoever translates the ISO data 
> into BCP 47-compatible formats is the "author."  In this case, that's 
> you.
(O.k. thought I was doing minor clerical work here, following your directives.
And anyway, I am finally getting shy, now that I got to do all this, but o.k.)


> Do not add Comments fields that simply duplicate the information in the 
> Preferred-Value field.

That was sort of what I suspected; sorry.

(It would have been almost easier for you to just copy and paste these than to train me would not it have?)

Best, 

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100201/a949dfc8/attachment.htm