Registration forms for description changes

[Kent Karlsson]

>>> Description: [ADD] Slave
>>> Description: [ADD] Athapascan
>>
>> 1) This language is, I gather, now called "Slavey" (plus some other
>> names, incl. "Dené").
>>
>> 2) And, I gather, it is of the "Athapascan" **language family**.
>>
>> I.e., the entry for "ath" should have as its description "Athapascan
>> langauge (other)"
>> (though "other Athapascan language" would be even better...).
>
> If you believe any of the names in the Registry are inaccurate or
> incorrect or incomplete or misleading, we should discuss that issue
> separately.  I feel it is out of scope for this very specific project of
> providing ASCII-only alternative descriptions.

As it stands, the entry for 'den' in the registry is ok. But the
spelling for 'Slave' has been changed to 'Slavey'. More significantly
the "(Athapascan)" part is NOT an alternative name; instead it is unique
in the regitry for explicitly indicating the language family of 'den'.
So the PROPOSED new entry for 'den' is inaccurate.

The description for 'ath' appears not to have been updated with an
"(other)" when 'den' was added to the source standard. But the language
family codes aren't the most useful codes in the registry, and they
should not be used (much) once we get to 3066ter. There may well be
missing "(other)" for other language family codes.

     /kent k