Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]
cowan at ccil.org
Sat Apr 26 08:01:38 CEST 2008
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> 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.
Only if someone brings it to your attention, I think. Comment fields
> 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?
It may cause trouble, but not on our watch. The semantics of language subtags
come from ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue, not us.
[W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan
febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot cowan at ccil.org
that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith http://ccil.org/~cowan
in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta
More information about the Ietf-languages