Picking and choosing
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Wed Jan 30 17:01:07 CET 2008
Doug Ewell wrote:
>> The reviewer could refuse to do this.
> Actually he could not
Of course he can, that this could then trigger an appeal,
because it violates MUSTard in 4646 is a different issue.
> There's no evidence that 'eur' conflicts with an existing
> Registry entry.
There's some evidence that copying ISO 639-3 input "as is"
to a IANA registry without allowing sanity checks is unwise.
> What is a "disputed" territory?
When I used that adjective I had DG, EA, IC, etc. in mind as
proposed in three "disputed" memos posted after 4646bis-08.
The question of catching obvious / likely errors before they
are added to the IANA registry is not limited to ISO 639-3
input. You can substitute my polemic "disputed" by a better
word, maybe "humbug" is clearer.
> What happened to the idea of BCP 47 being an application
> and extension of the core ISO and UN standards, instead of
> a competitor?
There were no *similar* problems with ISO 3166-1 and 639-2,
and real problems (for our purposes) with ISO 3166-1 were
fixed by RFC 4646.
It wasn't clear for me that jokes can end up in ISO 639-3,
where it's hard to find out why they were added. It also
wasn't foreseeable that 4646bis-09 ff. will try the stunt
of an *intentional* IETF process failure with DG, EA, etc.
More information about the Ietf-languages