[Ltru] Charter Discussion

[Doug Ewell]

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> You may be interested to know that no 639-6 alpha4 representation will 
> be allocated to a linguistic entity that already has a 639-3 alpha3 
> code.

That is a dramatic step toward eliminating my concerns -- and probably 
those of others as well -- that 639-6 couldn't be made to work with a 
successor to RFC 3066bis.

I'll still be interested to see how we would go about defining 
equivalences between a language-script combination, or a language-region 
combination, and a unitary 639-6 code element that means the same thing.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/