ekl - Kol (Bangladesh)

[Michael Everson]

On 10 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:

> 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.

In this case it will be best to have the two entries as the 639 standard does. If we match 639 we can blame them if someone complains. :-)

I don't think "fairness" comes into it, and if it does, it'd be a matter for the 639 RA.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/