ISO 639-3 changes, part 2

Doug Ewell doug at
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  |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list