Duplicate Busters: Survey #1 [bwo] and [bxx]

Phillips, Addison addison at amazon.com
Thu Jul 31 21:36:50 CEST 2008

Joan Spanne wrote:

I agree that [bwo] and [bxx] are not duplicates in the same sense as the Awa and Murik cases.

Accepting this situation as it stands:
[bwo] Boro (reference name), Borna (additional name)
[bxx] Borna (reference name)

is also my basis for suggesting the resolution for [aru] and [arx]  as
[aru] Arawá (reference name), Aruá (additional name)
[arx] Aruá (reference name)

In other words, can the same name be used with two different code elements without further qualification if they are not  the reference names in both instances?
(This is actually a question for the ISO 639 JAC, but I would like comments from these groups, as well, as there is some crossover.)
<AP> The problem is that the registry just shows “Description: something”. And the two items may or may not be near each other in the registry. For casual users trying to find the right code element (especially with minority languages), this might lead to mis-tagging or inappropriate choices. The 4646bis draft, therefore, is currently requiring the editor of 4645bis (that’d be Doug) to avoid duplicates and will impose future limitations on registry entries to try and ensure that such confusion doesn’t arise. It isn’t *required* that ISO 639 change descriptions too, but it would be nice.
But what it also means (to finally answer your question) is that the same name cannot be used for two different code elements by rule, since the reference name status isn’t cited in the registry (it’s supposed to be first, though).
Best Regards,

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Editor – RFC 4646bis

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080731/dfa34fcf/attachment.htm 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list