Results of Duplicate Busters Survey #1
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Aug 26 02:32:16 CEST 2008
Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
> My preference would be to remove Dimli and Kirmanjki as alternative
> descriptions for zza, if ISO 639-3 RA does so.
I would always choose to follow the ISO 639-3 solution, if one exists.
I'm delighted to see that they have been receptive to solving this
problem, which is not their own.
> Failing that, I support your suggestion, even if ISO 639-3 RA
> continues to ignore the issue.
For the record, I didn't say or believe that ISO 639-3/RA had ignored
the issue. I assumed it was either an unintentional oversight or a
conscious decision not to use the same solution for macro/individual
that they had used for country A/country B. Neither of these is quite
the same as ignoring.
Joan Spanne <ISO639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:
> I think that the ISO 639/JAC erred in including so many names with the
> macrolanguage (done before I was a voting member). I cannot simply
> remove the names (as I also think would be better), because they are
> included in Part 2. So the offending name pairs will be disambiguated
> in Part 3.
> At the moment I am processing substantive change requests and trying
> to meet other deadlines with other work, so it may be a week before
> these changes are posted publicly either online or in download tables.
Good enough. I'll wait 2 weeks for the new files before dropping a
reminder note. Thanks for taking care of this.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages