Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

Michael Everson everson at
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.

*eyes narrow*

>>>(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 *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list