LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Sat May 5 01:46:22 CEST 2012
Peter Constable wrote:
> There are various distinct issues:
>
> 1. providing enough description to make reasonably clear the intended
> denotation
>
> 2. providing a preferred display name (in language X, or an
> autoglottonym) for the language
>
> 3. providing a comprehensive set of names that might be the way a user
> might expect (e.g. terms that they might use to search for the
> language in a language picker UI)
>
> 4. providing translations of terms in 2 or 3 in various languages
>
> 5. providing an exhaustive listing of names known to ever be used for
> the language in linguistic documentation (for purposes of
> documentation, not for use in any ICT implementation)
>
> Certain #1 is within the scope of the LSTR. It's not clear that any of
> the others are in scope.
I think it should be obvious that neither #4 nor #5 is being attempted
here, nor really #3 in the true sense of "comprehensive." Slovene is
certainly "a" preferred display name for this language, so maybe #2.
Clearly the ISO 639 folks (both -2 and -3) have provided, and the
Registry has carried over, many additional names that are sometimes just
alternative spellings (Kuanyama and Kwanyama), sometimes regionally
preferred names (Catalan and Valencian), and sometimes... well, I don’t
know what value is added (Limburgan, Limburger, Limburgish). Of course
these are ISO 639's responsibility and not strictly ours.
I won't fight hard over this one if it's going to derail Tomaž's other
three proposals.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list