Duplicate Busters: Survey #1
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Aug 1 03:54:23 CEST 2008
Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
> If a 4646bis would be published it apparently offers a new
> field "Scope" to disambiguate "macrolanguage" from the same
> description used for an "individual language".
> If that is so the context explaining why there is a dupe is
> in the registry, a similar situation as for the "deprecated"
> dupes. Therefore the source description should stay as is.
I guess this comment applies to Dimli/Kirmanjki/Zaza.
> For three of the four remaining cases (Aruá, Awa, Murik) it
> would be nice to get the disambiguation in the *source*, or
> as a comment. Don't touch their Descriptions, it is the job
> of the source to get it right, and it is the job of Comments
> to offer critical missing info.
I agree with Frank (and Debbie) that it would be good to have ISO 639-3
disambiguate these. At first I was concerned about their turnaround
time, but then I thought of LTRU's milestones and laughed at myself.
The changes I am proposing to the source names consist only of adding
parenthetical annotations to the existing names, in the same (and only)
way that ISO 639 already uses parentheses in language names:
Interlingua (International Auxiliary Language Association)
Occitan (post 1500)
Tonga (Tonga Islands)
> The last case (Borna) is arguably no real dupe, bwo is also
> known as Boro, bbx is only known as Borna.
ISO 639-3 makes a distinction between the reference and non-reference
names. RFC 4646bis does not, although it will non-normatively place the
ISO 639-3 reference name (if any) first within the record. So this is
not a problem for 639-3, but it is for us.
> Survey #1, are there coming more ?
There will be a #2. Stay tuned.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages