<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ISO 639-3 procedure does require that
it does not have duplicate names, but whether in reference names only or
among all names is what needs clarification from the ISO 639 perspective
(additional names moved into ISO 639-3 from Part 2, not originally as part
of the standard). I now understand Addison's (and Doug's) position that
all "descriptions" (which in these four cases are constituted
by the language names) must be unique in the context of RFC 4646 within
a single domain (as John Cowan remarked).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I will take action to resolve the matter
for each of the four (Aruá; Awa; Borna; Murik) by early next week.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I am inclined to accept Doug's recommendations,
with the exception of Aurá. Precedent within the standard uses a state
or province level geographic qualifier, so those would be [arx] "Aruá
(Rodonia State)" and [aru] "Aruá (Amazonas State)". If they
were geographically proximal to the district level, the next choice of
qualifier would be classification based (the highest level where they are
distinct).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Joan Spanne<br>
ISO 639-3/RA<br>
SIL International<br>
7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd<br>
Dallas, TX 75236<br>
ISO639-3@sil.org</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Phillips, Addison"
<addison@amazon.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2008-07-31 02:36 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"ISO639-3@sil.org" <ISO639-3@sil.org>,
LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, "ietf-languages@iana.org"
<ietf-languages@iana.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo]
and [bxx]</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3 color=#004080 face="Times New Roman">Joan Spanne wrote:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
I agree that [bwo] and [bxx] are not duplicates in the same sense as the
Awa and Murik cases.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Accepting this situation as it stands:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
[bwo] Boro (reference name), Borna (additional name)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
[bxx] Borna (reference name)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
is also my basis for suggesting the resolution for [aru] and [arx] as</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
[aru] Arawá (reference name), Aruá (additional name)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
[arx] Aruá (reference name)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
In other words, can the same name be used with two different code elements
without further qualification if they are not the reference names
in both instances?</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
(This is actually a question for the ISO 639 JAC, but I would like comments
from these groups, as well, as there is some crossover.)</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">---- </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"><AP> The problem is
that the registry just shows “Description: something”. And the two items
may or may not be near each other in the registry. For casual users trying
to find the right code element (especially with minority languages), this
might lead to mis-tagging or inappropriate choices. The 4646bis draft,
therefore, is currently requiring the editor of 4645bis (that’d be Doug)
to avoid duplicates and will impose future limitations on registry entries
to try and ensure that such confusion doesn’t arise. It isn’t *<b>required</b>*
that ISO 639 change descriptions too, but it would be nice.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">But what it also means (to
finally answer your question) is that the same name cannot be used for
two different code elements by rule, since the reference name status isn’t
cited in the registry (it’s supposed to be first, though).</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Best Regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Addison</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">Addison Phillips</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">Globalization
Architect -- Lab126</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">Editor – RFC
4646bis</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode"> </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">Internationalization
is not a feature.</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">It is an architecture.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no<br>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<br>
</font></tt>
<br>