Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Fri May 2 16:50:25 CEST 2008

Hi, I don't support a comment for [kha] either, but do for [lyg].

--C. E. Whitehead
Peter Constable petercon at  I'd like to comment on the perception of a split: 
> In as much as, before coding [lyg], Lingngam did not have any  
> independent code element and so would seem to have been 
> most closely represented by [kha], 
. . .
>  She differentiated between a "chipping off" -- that is, something that 
> might look like a split/narrowing -- from a true split/narrowing, a 
> key factor in the former being that there is no reason to assume that 
> the existing category has actually been used assuming that 
> it encompassed the "chipped-off" variety being proposed for 
> separate encoding. 

> I wouldn't have a problem with a comment on [kha] indicating that it
>  doesn't include Lyngngam, but I don't particularly see that as needed. 

I think though that a comment that Lyngngam would have been formerly encoded as [kha] is appropriate in this case.  If we all agree on it we can put it in without a lot of ordeal, in this one case at least.

> Peter

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list