Anomaly in upcoming registry
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Jun 29 15:04:34 CEST 2009
Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>> ... 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
No, I agree that Mark was not calling to change anything in
draft-4645bis, but rather in the "draft-4645bis Registry" -- the
Registry to be supplied to IANA by draft-4645bis, whose method of
construction is described in draft-4645bis.
My position is that the change Mark suggests may not be appropriate, and
is certainly not a <span lang="en-US">slam dunk</span>. It depends on
our interpretation of draft-4646bis and any priorities it does or
doesn't give to ISO 639-3 over other parts of ISO 639, and it depends on
whether the relevant RA or JAC decides to correct the inconsistency in
639 by either (a) reviving "sh" in 639-1 and adding "hbs" to 639-2, or
(b) withdrawing "hbs" from 639-3.
I don't see why the philosophical discussion necessarily must wait until
the new Registry is in force, but if others want to wait, that's fine
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages