Alemanic & Swiss German

[Mark Davis]

Ok, so far so good. It sounds like we agree that the reference name for gsw
in 639-3 should be "Swiss German", and that that should be the first name
listed in 639-2. What would be the right channels in ISO to get this fixed?

I would also question that "Alemanic" should even be mentioned, since I
really don't think it is common at all to refer to it as "Alemanic" (except
mistakenly), but that is clearly of somewhat lesser importance.

Mark

On 12/4/06, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  It is not the case that 639-3 lists "Alemanic" as the **sole** name for
> gsw; it lists "Swiss German" as well.
>
>
>
> However, it does appear that the current draft does use "Alemanic" as the
> reference name, which I agree is a bad choice since it is misleading, and
> that "Swiss German" would be a better choice: even if the appropriateness of
> "Alemanic" is in question, "Swiss German" is not and, among
> English-language names, is the most commonly used.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis
>
>  The only reason it does have to do with LTRU is that we are considering
> adding 639-3, and 639-3 lists "Alemanic" as the *sole* name for gsw, which
> is clearly incorrect. Thus it raises the issue of whether to take the 639-3
> names wholesale, or allow corrections.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20061204/64573b82/attachment.html