Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]
everson at evertype.com
Sun Apr 27 02:38:18 CEST 2008
At 22:22 -0600 2008-04-25, Doug Ewell wrote:
>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
That is not our job. The semantics of 639=3 are the responsibility of
its maintainers, and if they want distinctions to be made know to us,
they must make the distinctions known to us.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages