The way we have it set up, it isn't for us to decide. But consumers of BCP47 (like CLDR) do have to, if ISO continues to change languages into macrolanguages (will German be next?).<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:01, Doug Ewell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
ISO 639-3/RA has released a new set of changes for the 2009 change<br>
cycle:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2009_Summary.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2009_Summary.pdf</a><br>
<a href="http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp" target="_blank">http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp</a><br>
<br>
As the home page indicates, 83 explicit changes have been made in the<br>
ISO 639-3 code set. This will probably translate to roughly, but not<br>
exactly, 83 changes in the Language Subtag Registry. Registration forms<br>
and proposed records for each of these will be posted to this list in<br>
accordance with BCP 47 requirements. This will probably happen over the<br>
next few weeks, sooner if I look under a rock and find some unexpected<br>
spare time.<br>
<br>
Of possible interest to this list, based on earlier discussions: Latvian<br>
was converted to a macrolanguage (encompassing Latgalian and Standard<br>
Latvian); the corresponding requests for Lithuanian have *not* yet been<br>
approved, but are still pending; and Auriongx was rejected.<br>
<br>
Since this announcement will likely cause some individuals to notice<br>
certain ISO 639-3 requests for the first time, please note that this<br>
list is not the venue to protest that a given change should not have<br>
been made, or a decision should have been made differently. The correct<br>
approach would be to submit a request to ISO 639-3/RA, although it would<br>
have been far better to comment during the comment period.<br>
<br>
Likewise, the Reviewer (with our help) is required to cause these<br>
changes to be reflected in the LSR, unless a conflict would ensue (e.g.<br>
a clerical error on the part of the RA would result in a duplicate or<br>
invalid subtag). It is not for us to decide at this point whether we<br>
agree or disagree with the RA's decisions.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | <a href="http://www.ewellic.org" target="_blank">http://www.ewellic.org</a><br>
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ <a href="http://is.gd/2kf0s" target="_blank">http://is.gd/2kf0s</a> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>