ISO 639-3 changes, part 2
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Feb 2 15:23:23 CET 2010
CE Whitehead wrote:
>> I agree 100% with Kent here. The usual order is Deprecated, then
>> Preferred-Value.
>
> O.k. I switched the order around a bit; Idid not think I was supposed
> to but some forms had it differently . . .including the one in RFC
> 5646 3.5 -- and that's why I switched in the end; sorry!
You are right that Figure 5 in Section 3.5 puts Preferred-Value ahead of
Description. I wish I had noticed that sometime during the long
development period.
In any case, Kent is right that the order of fields within a record is
not normative, but I do prefer to keep them in the order in which they
appear in Section 3.1.2.
I also noticed that Figure 5 not only includes a placeholder for
Comments, but for lots of other fields as well that might not be used
for a given registration. Since I haven't been gratuitously plugging in
empty Suppress-Script and Macrolanguage fields in forms, I'll stop
reflexively adding blank Comments fields as well. That probably led to
CE's confusion in thinking that blank fields might be appropriate for
the records too.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list