ekl - Kol (Bangladesh)

[Doug Ewell]

"Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley at gmail dot com> wrote:

>> I suggest that we add this new name to the subtag record for 'ekl' as
>> the first Description field, but also keep plain "Kol" since it is
>> still in the Names Index.
>
> Is the bare "Kol" still listed in the tab files?

Yes, the Names Index is one of the tab files:

iso-639-3_Name_Index_20120614.tab:
ekl  A  SIL  ekl          Kol  I  L
ekl  A  SIL  ekl          Kol (Bangladesh)  I  L

Note that it is not relevant that "Kol" appears in this file first. The
Code Set file, which lists only the Reference Name, lists "Kol
(Bangladesh)".

> It seems to me to not be a good idea to list the bare "Kol" as a
> secondary description for "Kol (Bangladesh)" simply because of a
> mistake. It would be unfair to the other languages named "Kol", and
> would be duplicate information for no useful gain, IMO.

If it weren't in the official ISO 639-3 data file, I would agree that
leaving plain "Kol" would be, maybe not unfair, but certainly confusing,
given the existence of "Kol (This)" and "Kol (That)". (Remember that
this is the situation the Registry is already in; ISO 639-3 is helping
out here!)

BCP 47 says that Description fields for code elements based on an
external standard, like primary language subtags, are "initially taken
from that source standard." The word "initially" is important; it
doesn't say all of those Description fields must stay in the Registry
forever, and in fact:

"The source standard's descriptions MAY be edited or modified, either
prior to insertion or via the registration process, and additional or
extraneous descriptions omitted or removed."

So we can either withdraw the change to 'ekl' now (which I suggest, for
simplicity), or we can add "Kol (Bangladesh)" now and revisit the issue
of deleting "Kol" at a later time.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­