[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

Peter_Constable at sil.org Peter_Constable at sil.org
Wed Apr 9 18:21:57 CEST 2003

Mark Davis wrote on 04/09/2003 12:08:24 PM:

> There is a misunderstanding here. However one defines locales, one needs
> language ID to be useful...

> As a part of that definition, one needs an unambiguous specification of
> *written* language.

I completely agree, and agree that RFC3066bis can be an appropriate basis
for providing identification of that component of locale.

> However, the need for the addition of a script subtag to 3066bis is clear
> and present. And if 3066bis does not address that issue *very* soon, I
> forsee a splintering of language IDs (we are already seeing that in the
> Windows .NET values).

I agree.

> The normal pace of an ISO standard is far too slow for
> 3066bis to be dependent on it. So I see two alternatives:
> A. 3066bis adds script codes, SIL codes
> B. 3066bis adds script codes, ISO adds SIL codes to ISO 639-3, (later)
> 3066bis#2 adds ISO 639-3 codes

Given that ISO 639-3 seems likely to move forward, B may be preferable.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list