Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)

Håvard Hjulstad HHj at
Sun Jun 25 13:20:35 CEST 2006


(1) Correcting errors in the spellng of names, or adding additional names is not problem. All the ISO 639 RAs-JAC needs is documntation of what is actually the correct spelling in English, French, and in the language itself.

(2) Documentation of what is the correct form in the language itself may probably sometimes be simpler than for English and French. It seems quite obvious that there are different opinions out there as to what is "actuall correct" for English (and French). How much of the spelling features of the original language is borrowed when a language name is borrowed "without changes". I don't think that there exists a "universal English policy" on this. The JAC probably needs to refine its own policy. This issue will be raised with the JAC.

(3) We are in the process of making a database version the primary version of ISO 639. There may in the future be no paper version at all. Therefore I cannot promise that there will be an update of the paper version. "ISO 639 as database" will most likely not be the current web site version at Library of Congress, although the content will obviously be based on it.

(4) Part of the discussion in the JAC will relate to desired/needed features of the database version of ISO 639, in particular display and searching/matching capabilities.

(5) Conclusion: Changing "a" to "b" is no problem; we just need proper documentation. "Changing ' to '" is a slightly different story. The JAC needs to discuss policies, and we do depend on technical features that we don't quite have an overview of at this time.


Håvard Hjulstad
mailto:hhj at

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell at] 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 7:29 PM
To: Håvard Hjulstad
Cc: John Cowan; Mark Crispin; ietf-languages at
Subject: Re: Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)


Can we request this as individuals?

Change    Gwich´in (with U+00B4, on the Web pages)
   and    Gwich'in (with U+0027, in the paper document as you indicated)

    to    Gwichʼin (with U+02BC)


Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Crispin" <mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan at>
Cc: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at>; <ietf-languages at>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 9:24
Subject: Re: Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)

> +1
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, John Cowan wrote:
>> There's no question that I want to see ASCII and U+02BC; it's a 
>> question
>> of how to get there.  I'd rather persuade the RA to move up to the
>> Unicode age (we have plenty of evidence for the correctness of 
>> U+02BC)
>> and then follow them than do it ourselves.  As I said, an error 
>> should
>> be corrected as close as possible to the point where it happens.
> -- Mark --
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list