Anomaly in upcoming registry
John Cowan
cowan at ccil.org
Mon Jun 29 22:22:41 CEST 2009
Mark Davis â?? scripsit:
> hbs = sh, yet
> hbs is not Deprecated, and
> sh is Deprecated
It's actually worse than that. hbs in 639-2 is deprecated ("retired"),
but hbs in 639-3 is not deprecated.
> We could take ISO 639-3 as superseding 639-1 on the issue of deprecation,
> and I think that would be the right thing to do. However, it would be
> cleaner yet if ISO 639-1 were to un-deprecate sh, so that it was consistent
> with ISO 639-3.
For "639-1" read "639-1 and 639-2". But there's a policy question here:
coding a language in -1 or -2 is a policy decision, not merely a technical
one: it involves an explicit value judgement on which languages are considered
important enough to get -1 codes or membership in the -2 set. The various RAs
reserve the right, it seems to me, to change their minds about this (as we
reserve the right to ignore it when they remove codes).
--
My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But I'll be carefree cowan at ccil.org
Using XSLT
On an XML DBMS.
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list