Anomaly in upcoming registry
Mark Davis ⌛
mark at macchiato.com
Mon Jun 29 06:30:47 CEST 2009
Yes, that's what I proposed, considering this *after* the RFC is published
and registry updated.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 20:13, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>wrote:
> Hi -
> > From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> > To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry
> > The real anomaly, then, is within ISO 639, in which:
> > part 1 includes the 2-letter code element but deprecates it,
> > part 3 includes the 3-letter code element and does not deprecate it, and
> > part 2 does not include the 3-letter code element at all.
> > In draft-4646bis we are adding ISO 639-3 to the list of source
> > standards, not necessarily replacing ISO 639-1 and -2. At least I can't
> > find any text in draft-4646bis to the effect that -3 trumps -1 and -2 in
> > case of conflicts. So to me, it is not clear whether this subtag should
> > be left alone (following part 1 but not part 3) or should be
> > un-deprecated (following part 3 but not part 1). It certainly isn't
> > patently obvious to me that this is a bug in the draft-4645bis Registry
> > that needs to be fixed.
> I think no one is suggesting that anything be done to draft-4645bis.
> I think re-opening 4645bis to make a change of this nature would
> be inappropriate.
> After the registry has been updated, however, this list could reasonably
> discuss whether to do anything about this particular case.
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages