Anomaly in upcoming registry
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Jul 9 17:05:11 CEST 2009
In this case I agree with the conclusion -- we don't want to collapse these.
On the other hand, I'm not completely in agreement with your premise that this is solely ISO 639's call and that we have no say. We could choose to collapse these even if ISO 639 doesn't if we think that is the right thing to do for consumers of the LST registry. If ISO 639 chose to collapse these, we could choose to leave them as is if we think that is the right thing to do for consumers of the LST registry.
There are times when we simply want to follow what ISO does and not "second guess"; there are also times when we don't want to be subject to everything ISO may do -- such provisions are even baked into BCP 47.
IMO, if we think that sh not be deprecated for consumers of the LST registry, then we should go ahead and make that decision, regardless of whatever ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-3 may do.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:52 PM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry
Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> Where I *don't* want this discussion to go is down the path of whether
> any of the languages formerly known as Serbo-Croatian should be
> collapsed, as Romanian and Moldovan (rightly) were.
Agreed. It's not our call, it's ISO 639's call.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages