Keld Jørn Simonsen
Fri, 3 May 2002 23:57:32 +0200
Have you tried to contact the ISO 639 maintenance agency on this?
I think it would be best to coordinate with everybody, and it seems that
the best place to do the registration is with ISO as most others uses
their names as the primary ones.
I think it would be best to have the right thing done from the
beginning, as most people here really do not want to change codes, once
they are assigned.
I do not think that getting things approved in ISO will take
significantly longer there than with anybody else, recent turnaround for
ISO 639 language code approval has been in the order of a couple of
months. Once they are in the ISO 639 they are automatically also
applicable a number of other places that is not normally using IETF
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:19:13PM -0600, Pavla &OR Francis Frazier wrote:
> Dear Peter & Michael,
> Thank you for your pointers and exploration of the issues. Although I
> am not aware of the finer details, I do appreciate your wanting to
> streamline with ISO, yet at the same time, provide a standard for
> those requiring it sooner than such a process might occur. From what
> you have both written, it seems that I may go ahead & proceed with the
> filling out the RFC 3066 forms for each of the language names.
> In answer to earlier questions from you both:
> Michael: Yes I am aware of the RFC 3066 format, though I did hope a
> "mass" registration might be possible. I may write you individually
> with questions as they come up as I do the forms, if that is OK with
> Peter: Yes I have seen the elegant mapping from ISO 639 to the
> Ethnologue, very nice to "meet" one of the authors of it! I'll have
> to go over it again, but I think mine matches pretty closely to yours.
> As described in my introductory letter, I based what I did on:
> identifying the currently used names; and, making a "hybrid"
> hierarchy, based on the Smithsonian & the Ethnologue information
> (along with some other resources as named in bibliography.)
> Therefore, mine will not exactly match the Etnologue.
> Furthermore, after I was pointed to the site which Jacob Palme has,
> and later found the ISO 639 mapping, I realized the problems with
> overlap and potential future confusion. After discussing it with HL7
> leadership, it seemed the best course would be to submit names to
> IETF. It is my understanding that we (HL7) can deprecate codes, if
> necessary, in order to accommodate a potential conflicting
> streamlining result (if the result of more streamlining between IETF,
> the Ethnologue and/or ISO yields a set of names which does not
> perfectly fit with the set I want to submit now.)
> Concerning the use of "collective" I went by the ISO 639 names, and I
> will double check, but I believe the only "collective" I listed as
> viable for my use, was associated with the collective of the Creoles
> and Pidgins (other) (collective). I listed "Creoles and Pidgins
> (other) (collective)" as an abstract in my set, not to submit as a
> name, but as a way to show the relationship between the
> collective-member Chinook Wawa (name from my set) and the current ISO
> name Chinook Jargon (synonym.) Because that is already in ISO, I can
> try to submit Chinook Wawa as a synonym of the ISO code for Chinook
> Jargon, correct?
> Does that sound alright?
> Thank you all again!
> Pavla Frazier
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Peter_Constable@sil.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: possible additions
> | [copying to another relevant list with only partially overlapping
> | membership; apologies to those that receive duplicates]
> | On 05/03/2002 10:29:11 AM Michael Everson wrote:
> | >>Pavla has begun attempting something I have held back from doing
> for the
> | >>past two years: mass registrations. I suspected this was bound to
> | >>sooner or later.
> | >
> | >So did I.
> | [snip]
> | >>I see this mainly as a test of the willingness and ability of ISO
> to move
> | >>forward quickly with extension of the ISO 639 family of languages.
> | >
> | >Um, Peter, this isn't ISO, it's IETF.
> | It is? I must be lost. ("I knew I shoulda taken dat left toin at
> | Albequerque." :-)
> | My comment may seem out of place on this list since this isn't ISO,
> yet the
> | Convener of ISO/TC 37/SC 2/WG 1 is present, as are some others who
> | been involved in the work of WG 1. I guess my comments were
> primarily for
> | their benefit.
> | >Are you suggesting that we give
> | >this over to ISO or that we look at registering them here?
> | I don't have a simple answer for that. Allow me to explain.
> | Obviously Pavla can proceed to rework his requests into the
> | format. I have held back from pursuing a large number of additional
> | registrations with IANA for the past 14 months after I started
> | indication from ISO folk that there was interest in significanctly
> | extending the ISO 639 standard. It seems to me that we don't need
> lang IDs
> | for a large number of languages in both places. If these get added
> to the
> | IANA registry now and then ISO comes up with an extension to ISO 639
> in the
> | near future that provides codes for all of these as well, then the
> | codes will eventually be deprecated. (There might be a time delay --
> if ISO
> | adds new codes in a new part of the ISO 639 family, e.g. an ISO
> 639-3 --
> | then those would not be available without registration under RFC
> 3066 since
> | it does not identify ISO 639-3 as a source. But I'd be inclined to
> expect a
> | successor to RFC 3066 that did reference a new ISO 639-3 to appear
> | long, and at that point codes we add now would get deprecated.) So,
> | makes sense in the long term to look for codes for these languages
> to come
> | from ISO.
> | On the other hand, Pavla, quite understandably, doesn't want to wait
> a long
> | time to get what is needed by him and the agency he represents
> | Level Seven). This is the crux of the issue that ISO folk need to
> | They have been aware that industry needs for more expanded coverage
> | imminent, and that it has behoven them to act expeditiously to avoid
> | confusion that could result from duplication if others who can't
> keep on
> | waiting begin creating codes.
> | But it's an issue for this group as well: What do we want in the
> long term?
> | Do we want to keep the IANA registry limited to special cases of
> | individual-language definition or to codes for derivative notions
> | orthographies, as in the recent German case), leaving the source for
> | bulk of codes for individual languages to come from ISO 639? Or do
> we want
> | to disregard whatever future extensions to ISO 639 may (and are
> likely to)
> | appear, and in so doing invite a large number of new registrations?
> (If so,
> | we should start discussing process, because I'm going to want to
> | generating a large number of requests.) Or do we want to try to
> | Pavla to pursue his requests yet hope that no other large requests
> | before ISO can come up with something more comprehensive?
> | Personally, I'm not certain which of these choices to recommend. On
> the one
> | hand, I think it makes most sense to keep the IANA registry limited
> and to
> | allow ISO 639 to be the source for the vast majority of codes for
> | individual languages. (I'm assuming a willingness on the part of ISO
> | provide a comprehensive set of codes, and I have seen indications
> that that
> | is not an unrealistic expectation.) At the same time, user needs are
> | and I can easily sympathise with someone like Pavla not wanting to
> wait for
> | a large bureaucratic process to provide what is needed. I myself
> have been
> | very tempted to begin making mass requests for IANA registrations,
> but I've
> | held off because I have first needed to assess what would need to
> | for the languages of interest to me to be supported in major
> | protocols and platform infrastructures (e.g. MS Windows i18n
> | infrastructure).
> | I hope there is a real willingness of all the members here, and also
> | major industry and standards-body stakeholders, to take a serious
> look at
> | where we want to go in the long term in relation to language
> | issues, and a willingness to start making rapid progress toward
> | long-term solutions. I think it will be in the best interest of all
> of us
> | and of users at large if we do so.
> | - Peter