<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>A quick question re the foreseen relationship among
ISO-639-2, -3, and -5 in defining Alpha-3 language codes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>To what extent is ISO-639-2 being “absorbed”
into 639-3? I realize that the latter has harmonized its alpha-3’s wrt
the former, a process out of which came “macrolanguages” and the
recent redefinitions in 639-2 that Doug discovered. I ask because (a) in
another context (linguistics) I heard the opinion that ISO-639-1&2 are already
no longer useful (one minor reason being that some -2 codes are being written
in -3), and (b) one is aware that current recommendations in ICT use that where
languages have ISO-639-1 & 2 codes, that the former (alpha-2) codes are to be
used, which of course implies that at least part 1 has a future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Another question I have is in terms of “nesting”
of language codes – if everything is defined in part 3, then some of the
codes are by definition of a higher order than others (perhaps analogous to the
bibliographic and terminology division of part 2, except that they would have a
hierarchical relationship – if these reading is correct).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Complicating the picture, perhaps, is the use of the same
alpha-3 space for ISO-639-5. Effectively there would be in principle three
sets of lists of alpha-3 codes and three RAs dealing with the alpha-3 space
(communicating, coordinating, etc. as necessary). This is not a criticism in
any way, as such shared responsibilities and overlapping jurisdictions, if you
will, can be functional and sometimes even preferable. Mainly, though I’m
trying to understand it better, and as I do, wonder if important actors in the
allied fields (ICT, localization, linguistics, various projects) are not also
somewhat hazy on what the plans are (or are laboring under misperceptions of
the situation).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I’ve waded through part of RFC-4646 but am not sure
that it addresses this kind of issue. Thanks in advance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Don Osborn<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bisharat.net<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>PanAfrican Localisation project<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>