<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The ISO 639-3 website has been updated,
both the online code tables and the download tables, to reflect the nine
changes required to disambiguate names (8 instances) and align Part 3 with
Part 2 (1 instance). In the future I will be more vigilant to see that
proposed changes account for the need to maintain uniqueness in names.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">There are differences between the names
in Parts 2 and 3 where a (typically geographic or scope) qualifier is needed
in Part 3 to differentiate otherwise identical names, but no qualifier
is given (or needed) in the Part 2 instance. This has been the case since
the ISO/DIS 639-3, and will most likely persist. In other respects, Part
3 does its best to maintain agreement with Part 2 in names. (I found one
additional name in Part 3 that never filtered down to Part 2, which I will
address with the JAC).</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>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Doug Ewell"
<doug@ewellic.org></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">2008-08-03 01:13 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"><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</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot
de> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Apparently your proposals with one minor change and<br>
> one omission will make it to the source, that's IMO<br>
> better than slight differences.<br>
<br>
I agree.<br>
<br>
> For 'bxx' and future similar cases we might need a<br>
> way to indicate "dupes" directly in the description.<br>
<br>
The last we heard from ISO 639-3 (July 31) was that they had agreed to
<br>
add annotations to the two Bornas. Doing so would solve our problem
<br>
while causing little or no problem for 639-3 or its other users.<br>
<br>
> You didn't like my "foobar (*)" proposal to indicate<br>
> that this is not the primary "foobar" entry for the<br>
> relevant record type. How about using "(foobar)" ?<br>
<br>
I didn't agree with the premise that BCP 47 or the Registry should <br>
indicate a "primary" Description field at all.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645
* UTN #14<br>
http://www.ewellic.org<br>
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html<br>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no<br>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<br>
</font></tt>
<br>