"French part" and "Dutch part" (was: Re: Records and registration forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN)
doug at ewellic.org
Thu Dec 23 02:24:21 CET 2010
Re: "French part" and "Dutch part" (was: Re: Records and registration
forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN)Mark Davis 🍏 <mark at macchiato dot com>
> I think the first description should be without any parenthesized
> part; that is more appropriate for a comment.
What I proposed was two sets (shorter and longer form) of two
Description fields (one for MF and one for SX). It hadn't occurred to
me in this case to have a "first description" and a "second
description," like this:
*Description: Saint Martin
*Description: Saint Martin (French part)
and I think that would be silly.
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> That would be like having (before 1990) an entry for "Germany" and
> another for "Deutschland" and then have "West" and "East" as comments
> on the respective entries.
I didn't get it before, but now I think Kent is right. The names for MF
and SX are the same, except one is in French and the other is in Dutch.
And we do have precedents for non-English Description fields, especially
since ISO 639-3 likes to list local translations of the names of sign
> I'd be happy with "Dutch Saint Martin" and "French Saint Martin", or
> with "North Saint Martin" and "South Saint Martin", or some such, if
> it is the parentheses as such that are bothersome.
But I don't think anyone actually calls them by those names.
> But everyone else seem keen on keeping the same names as in the source
> standard. And then you need to include the parenthetical part of the
> name (as is), otherwise we'd be in the trouble as said above. (Which,
> among other things, would lead to strange translation problems...)
I now think the best thing to do is to use the names with parenthesized
part, as the only Description field for both MF and SX. They are
arguably the official ISO 3166-1 names, and they are descriptive enough
to obviate the need for a Comments field, without being verbose or
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages