<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi. I have gotten Kent's and Doug's corrections/comments and hope to have the corrected records in early tomorrow if not tonight; most corrections are done!<BR>
<BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR>Tue Feb 2 04:24:29 CET 2010 <BR> <BR>Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:<BR> <BR>>> Deprecated: 2010-03-01<BR>>> Preferred-Value: khk<BR>>> ...<BR>>> Preferred-Value: khk<BR>>> Deprecated: 2010-03-01<BR>><BR>> Please give the fields (lines) in the same order; just be be <BR>> consistent. Pick the order of fields used in the registry. It does not <BR>> formally matter, but it makes it easier to proof-read.<BR> <BR>> I agree 100% with Kent here. The usual order is Deprecated, then <BR>> Preferred-Value.<BR> <BR>O.k. I switched the order around a bit; Idid not think I was supposed to but some forms had it differently . . .including the one in RFC 5646 3.5 -- and that's why I switched in the end; sorry! After Doug's message last time I went through and copied everything from RFC 5646 that I could find there (<A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646#section-3.5">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646#section-3.5</A>). (Maybe we should correct the registration form example there. . . or does the order really matter?) What I could not find in rfc 5646 I copied from elsewhere. (it was troubling yes; the order of fields was not always the same . . . )<BR> <BR>>>> This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective<BR>>>> 2010-01-20, retiring the code element, 'drh', for Darkhat.<BR>>><BR>>> I think the information that "Merge[d] with Halh Mongolian [khk]" <BR>>> (from the RA's "change request summary") should be picked up here.<BR> <BR>>I had previously told CE that "it's probably not necessary" to include <BR>>this information, since the record already shows that 'khk' is the <BR>>Preferred-Value. It's also not harmful, though, and in the last 24 <BR>>hours I've swung a bit toward Kent's viewpoint. It's certainly not <BR>>critical one way or the other.<BR>I agree with Kent too and will copy him on this.<BR>>>> Description: Beti<BR>>><BR>>> This is for "Beti (Cameroon)", not to be confused with "Beti (Côte <BR>>> d'Ivoire)".<BR> <BR>>Kent is right. This is currently listed in 639-3, the Registry, and the <BR>>Summary report as "Beti (Cameroon)", and needs to remain unaltered here.<BR>Oops! Corrected.<BR>>> Added: 2009-07-29<BR>>> Deprecated: 2010-03-01<BR>><BR>>> I'm not so sure this one should be plainly "deprecated". Since "btb", <BR>>> Beti (Cameroon) [languages], has been determined to be a <BR>>> "group"/collection, "btb" should be regarded as a "collective code". <BR>>> Here I find it troublesome that 639-5 registrations are handled by a <BR>>> different RA, which in addition seems unresponsive to changes of this <BR>>> kind.<BR> <BR>>This is *completely* wrong. We are required ("MUST") to deprecate <BR>>subtags whose code elements have been withdrawn in the core standard. <BR>>See Section 3.4, item 14.<BR> <BR>>It is not our place to decide whether 639-5 will or should pick this up <BR>>as a collection code element. If and when they do, we can un-deprecate <BR>>'btb' and add the "Scope: collection" field. Remember that under RFC <BR>>5646 we now have the ability to un-deprecate a subtag, which was not <BR>>allowed under 4646.<BR>Thanks.<BR> <BR>>The 639-3 comment that "Beti is a group name, not an individual language <BR>>name" gives us no authority whatsoever to exempt this subtag from the <BR>>requirements in Section 3.4.<BR>This was my impression. Thanks Doug for clarifying this.<BR>>> Preferred-Value:<BR>><BR>>> There should be no preferred-value line here. This, and the comments <BR>>> above, applies also to the "registration form" just below.<BR> <BR>>Correct. If there is no Preferred-Value (or other attribute), then the <BR>>line simply doesn't appear in the Registry.<BR>I'll remove the 'Preferred-Value' field here then.<BR> <BR> <BR>>> Description: Lushootseed<BR>>> Added: 2009-07-29<BR>>> Deprecated: 2010-03-01<BR>><BR>>> Again, I'm not so sure this one should be plainly "deprecated". Since <BR>>> "lut", Lushootseed, has been determined to be a "group"/collection, <BR>>> "lut" should be regarded as a "collective code".<BR> <BR>>Again, these comments from 639-3 do not guide what we do here. 639-3 <BR>>doesn't decide what is or isn't a collection, 639-5 does, and on their <BR>>own schedule.<BR> <BR>>However, as I wrote in another message, we need to disregard the 639-3 <BR>>action on Lushootseed altogether, since it is being rescinded.<BR>O.k. I'll remove the change request record!<BR>>> Type: language<BR>>> Subtag: mrt<BR>><BR>>> -> 'myt'. 'mrt' is for "Marghi Central", ("Central Marghi"...)<BR> <BR>> I suspect this was a typo, <BR> <BR>Corrected; I thought I checked everything twice.<BR> <BR> <BR>> I don't think Kent mentioned this, but CE also included a blank line <BR>> before the final "%%" in some records. This is not critical in <BR>> registration forms, but MUST NOT appear in records. There must also be <BR>> only one space between the ":" and the field value, but this error was <BR>> only made in the Lushootseed record which we are not going to process.<BR>Thanks for catching these.<BR>>--<BR>>Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | <A href="http://www.ewellic.org">http://www.ewellic.org</A><BR>>RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ <A href="http://is.gd/2kf0s">http://is.gd/2kf0s</A> ­ <BR> <BR>
* * *<BR>Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se <BR>Mon Feb 1 19:52:27 CET 2010 <BR> <BR> <BR>>See comments below.<BR> <BR>> /kent k<BR> <BR> <BR>>Den 2010-02-01 18.17, skrev "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>:<BR> <BR>> Re: ISO 639-3 changes, part 2 ?<BR> <BR>>(I don't like your over-use of question marks... It's bad style even for an<BR> <BR>>email.)<BR> <BR>Hmm. When I'm sure of myself I don't use them; they indicate where I need a response.<BR>But o.k.; will try to cut down on those in my emails to this list. <BR> <BR> <BR>Again, I'll email the corrections A.S.A.P. tonight or tomorrow.<BR> <BR>Best,<BR> <BR>C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR><BR> </body>
</html>