Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]
CE Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
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 microsoft.com 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 hotmail.com
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list