ISO 639-3 releases list of 2009 changes
Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no
Fri Jan 22 19:49:00 CET 2010
John Cowan, Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:03:19 -0500:
> Mark Davis ☕ scripsit:
( I placed back the cappuccino letter that John's mailer destroyed.)
>> The way we have it set up, it isn't for us to decide. But consumers
>> of BCP47 (like CLDR) do have to, if ISO continues to change
>> languages into macrolanguages
If you by that mean that CLDR should try to annulate the effect of
macrolanguages, then I think rather the opposite is the way to go.
Though, of course, every case should be treated independently, I guess.
>>(will German be next?).
> Very improbable, given the description of 'de(u)' in Ethnologue.
> Though Ethnologue is no more immune to error than ISO 639 [*], it does
> provide the denotation of the vast majority of 639-3 code elements, and
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=deu is clearly about
> Standard German as spoken from Belgium to Kazakhstan, not any other kind
> of German. It would be a massive and unnecessary widening of the term
> to turn it into a macrolanguage of any sort.
But even so, the CLDR issue can be looked at from another angle than
the one Mark does:
It has been pointed out that CLDR is derived from BCP47 and not the
other way around. Currently the CLDR treats 'no' as a synonym of 'nb'
(I would like to file a bug against this when I have power to follow it
up ...) However, just as CLDR this way overrules the effect of a
macrolanguage classification, it could also go the other way and
effectively treat 'de' as a macrolanguage/fallback code for e.g.
'gsw'. That to me seems as often a quite reasonable think to do. It
would not not need to affect how language tagging should be performed
however - it could remain "forbidden" to tag "gsw" content as "de".
leif halvard silli
More information about the Ietf-languages