Anomaly in upcoming registry

John Cowan cowan at
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.    
    But I'll be carefree                        cowan at
    Using XSLT

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list