Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Apr 26 06:22:43 CEST 2008
Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
>> My overall feeling is that we should accept the narrowing, which is
>> only implicit
> Agreed. As we follow ISO 639 this is the right decision to make IMHO.
>> (it does not require actual changes to the registry entry for 'kha').
> I don't agree here. I think, as has been done before, that 'kha'
> should have a comment added to say something like "as of [date] this
> code does not include Lynghgam - see lyg"
I'm not completely opposed to this, but I'm concerned about the
precedent it sets for us (mostly Michael and me). Basically we would
need to examine every new ISO 639-3 code element to determine whether it
represents a split of an existing code element, and create a comment on
the existing subtag similar to the one proposed here. (Normally when
ISO 639-3/RA performs a split like this, they retire the original and
create two new codes; but there is no guarantee that this list would be
notified personally in the event an existing code is narrowed in scope,
as was the case here.) How much trouble does it cause if we get a batch
of 250-plus ISO 639-3 changes and one of these slips through unnoticed?
Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages