<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi, in commenting on the "info." field, I tried to combine both of Doug's posts, and comment on these together.<BR>
<BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR>Sat Feb 20 19:05:05 CET 2010 <BR>
<BR>> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:<BR>
>> You sometimes refer to "lav". I think that reference should be to "lv" <BR>>> or to "lav/lv".<BR>
> In forms like these, I use the 3-letter code element value when <BR>> referring to ISO 639-3, or to an action taken by ISO 639-3/RA, and I use <BR>> the 2- or 3-letter subtag value when referring to the IANA Language <BR>> Subtag Registry. Similarly, I try to use the term "code element" or <BR>> "subtag" depending on whether a 639-3 or LSR entity is being discussed. <BR>> The two are not 100% interchangeable and I don't treat them as if they <BR>> were.<BR>
> I don't want to make it look as though 'lv' is an ISO 639-3 code <BR>> element. It's not.<BR>(I missed the fact that this is not an ISO 639-3 code; sorry.<BR>I don't have access to ISO 639-4, and am not sure what needs to be added regarding ISO 639-4?<BR>Peter mentioned ISO 639-4 in his email although the rest applied to ISO 639-1)<BR>> How about:<BR>
> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective <BR>> 2010-01-20, reclassifying the ISO 639-3 code element 'lav' (Latvian, <BR>> which is represented by ISO 639-1 'lv' in the Language Subtag <BR>> Registry) as a macrolanguage <BR>> encompassing 'ltg' (Latgalian) and 'lvs' (Standard Latvian)."<BR>Fine with me.<BR>> and:<BR>
> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective <BR>> 2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lvs' for Standard Latvian, <BR>> encompassed by the macrolanguage code element 'lav' (Latvian, which is <BR>> 'lv' in the Language Subtag Registry). Both a primary language subtag <BR>> and an extended language subtag were added for this code element."<BR>
What about<BR>=><BR>"This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective <BR>2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lvs' for Standard Latvian, <BR>encompassed by the ISO 639-3 macrolanguage code element 'lav' (Latvian, which is <BR>which is represented by ISO 639-1 'lv' in the Language Subtag <BR>Registry). Both a primary language subtag <BR>and an extended language subtag were added for this code element."<BR>
<BR>
Also ditto for [ltg] of course.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>> "Central Bontok proper" or some such clarification is needed here (as <BR>>> for some other cases handled before); the change from "c" to "k" is <BR>>> not sufficient for this. Similarly for the registration data for <BR>>> "lbk".<BR>
> We have other changes which differ by only one letter: Yakima was <BR>> changed to Yakama, and Kabiyé (acute accent) was changed to Kabiyè <BR>> (grave accent). The change from "Maguindanao" to "Maguindanaon" does <BR>> not visually stand out either. I can change the 'bnc' registration form <BR>> to read "Central Bontok proper" but it's understandable that this <BR>> becomes a very gray area when over 100 changes are being made in one <BR>> activity.<BR>I think it should say this<BR>for [lbk]:<BR>=><BR>
" This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective<BR> 2010-01-20, adding the code element 'lbk' for Central Bontok proper,<BR> encompassed by macrolanguage 'bnc' (Bontok)."<BR>
Best,<BR>
C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><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> </body>
</html>