<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Hi.<br><br>Doug Ewell
<a href="mailto:ietf-languages%40alvestrand.no?Subject=Re%3A%20LANGUAGE%20SUBTAG%20REGISTRATION%20FORM%3A%20Slovene&In-Reply-To=%3C87BF9080C059462883CA30006371E9B5%40DougEwell%3E" title="LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene">doug at ewellic.org
</a><br>
Sat May 5 01:46:22 CEST 2011<br><pre>> Peter Constable wrote:
>><i> There are various distinct issues:
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> 1. providing enough description to make reasonably clear the intended
</i>>><i> denotation
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> 2. providing a preferred display name (in language X, or an
</i>>><i> autoglottonym) for the language
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> 3. providing a comprehensive set of names that might be the way a user
</i>>><i> might expect (e.g. terms that they might use to search for the
</i>>><i> language in a language picker UI)
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> 4. providing translations of terms in 2 or 3 in various languages
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> 5. providing an exhaustive listing of names known to ever be used for
</i>>><i> the language in linguistic documentation (for purposes of
</i>>><i> documentation, not for use in any ICT implementation)
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Certain #1 is within the scope of the LSTR. It's not clear that any of
</i>>><i> the others are in scope.
</i>
> I think it should be obvious that neither #4 nor #5 is being attempted
> here, nor really #3 in the true sense of "comprehensive." Slovene is
> certainly "a" preferred display name for this language, so maybe #2.
Agreed with Doug that this seems to be a "preferred display name."
> Clearly the ISO 639 folks (both -2 and -3) have provided, and the
> Registry has carried over, many additional names that are sometimes just
> alternative spellings (Kuanyama and Kwanyama), sometimes regionally
> preferred names (Catalan and Valencian), and sometimes... well, I don’t
> know what value is added (Limburgan, Limburger, Limburgish). Of course
> these are ISO 639's responsibility and not strictly ours.
I myself am somewhat "lukewarm" (meaning not particularly excited) about our adding this description, since I'm not sure whether it's within scope either, but I feel safest deferring to the rest of the list as to what's in scope regarding the added description.<br>.
> I won't fight hard over this one if it's going to derail Tomaž's other
> three proposals.
Yes I agree; the other three registrations should go through regardless, in my opinion also.<br>Best,<br>--C. E. Whitehead<br>cewcathar@hotmail.com<br> > --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
<a href="http://www.ewellic.org/">> http://www.ewellic.org</a> | @DougEwell</pre><br><hr>" </div></body>
</html>