<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Le 04/01/11 09:16, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:20110104141607.GA15288@nic.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 12:11:26AM -0500,
Patrick Andries <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patrick@hapax.qc.ca"><patrick@hapax.qc.ca></a> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Everybody agrees it is "macrolanguage"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I have a doubt here. From your description, it really seemed it was a
new language, some form of "standard berber", not a macrolanguage.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[PA] Well, that is really the question. Any disadvantage of
choosing a macrolanguage over a new language code? Which is easier
to get? Which is preferred by software implementors? <br>
<br>
Is it best to let the ISO 639-3 Registrar<span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"
lang="EN-US"> </span>make that decision? (What should be done
then? Applying for both a macrolanguage and a new language code?) <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20110104141607.GA15288@nic.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and ISO 639-3 is the way?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. New language, their business first. RFC 5646, section 3.6 :
Before attempting to register a language subtag, there MUST be an
attempt to register the language with ISO 639.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
[PA] So I understand 639-2 is out of the question...?<br>
<br>
<br>
P. A.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>