Anomaly in upcoming registry
gerard.meijssen at openprogress.org
Mon Jul 13 08:28:11 CEST 2009
With all due respect for the diligence of the process but when you consider
the length of time it took, the ISO-639-6 will make this same process
impossible because of the amount of data involved. When this process only
starts when the publication is imminent, it will take maybe at least a
decade based on the number of new entries that ISO 639-6 will bring. That
means imho that for ISO-639-6 we will have to rethink the process. We do
have room before the publication of the new standard.. it could be seen as
pre-emptive involvement because of the huge amount of data involved.
2009/7/13 Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> > There's no way that I'd be willing to start another round of ltru
> > revsions to make the handling of such a hypothetical any clearer. At
> > some point folks need to realize that the BCP is not an algorithm for
> > execution by finite state automata. It gives guidelines to humans
> > who, one would hope, are capable of exercising a bit of common sense.
> I would hope it's blindingly obvious to Randy and everyone else that I
> agree with this statement. I would not want to start another round of
> LTRU revisions for almost any reason.
> Every so often we talk about adding ISO 639-6 support, which would be a
> good enough reason, but only if (a) the draft and data were fully
> available for WG review, (b) ISO publication appeared imminent, and (c)
> the WG had some hope of agreeing where to put the subtags
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages