Code Changes (CC) in ISO 15924

[Michael Everson]

I will not discuss ISO 15924 on the IETF languages list. Discussion 
of ISO 15924 belongs on the Unicode list.

John, you are being alarmist and I suggest you study the code changes 
carefully before accusing the ISO 15924 RA of crass behaviour.

This one time only, I will answer your questions.

Michael Everson
Registrar

At 15:34 +0000 2005-01-20, John Clews wrote:
>This may be a worst case scenario, which can be easily clarified, but as
>it stands, there seems to be some anomalies on the ISO 14924 page on the
>Unicode site, analogous to the "CS = Serbia and Montenegro" code change
>debacle relating to ISO 3166.

"Seems"

>The situation seems to be as follows:

"Seems"

>1. ISO 15924:2004 - Information and documentation -- Codes for the
>representation of names of scripts, was published on 2004-02-04.
>
>2. According to the relevant page on the Unicode site, i.e.
>http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/codechanges.html
>there seem to have been some actual code changes _since_then_(marked as CC
>in the final column)
>
>3. Is this correct?

Duh.

>4. Were any _4-letter_ codes changed after publication?

Look at the dates.

>5. Why were code changes (as opposed to clarifications) made after
>publication?

I don't know. I don't remember. I don't know what codes you are 
worried about. Your rhetoric sucks. It is alarmist and general. If 
you had a specific comment about a specific code you should have made 
it.

>6. Are there therefore deprecated 4-letter codes? (and deprecated 3-digit
>codes?) None are listed in the table, though if a Code Change was made, it
>implies that there was a previous code.

I don't know, and I'm not going to enter into discussion of this on 
the IETF languages list. It is out of scope.

>7. What will be done about deprecated codes when they happen, and metadata
>which uses deprecated codes?

*Shrugs*

>8. Can we avoid getting into the crass situation that the ISO 3166/MA got
>into with the CS Code Change in ISO 3166? (I hope that the answer is Yes!)

*Shrugs*. If you don't know my views on this topic by now, you've not 
been paying attention.

>The table is shown as text below, so that date comparisons can be made,
>and some elucidation given in relation to points 1 and 2 above.

Unn-unh. Do the work yourself, John, if you want to do an exegesis on 
ISO 15924.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com